Re: [xsl] text()

[Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear David,

I don't believe anyone in this thread has argued that newcomers should
not be forgiven for supposing that 'text()' -- or 'node()' or
'comment()' or now 'element()' and 'attribute()' -- is a function like
'string()' and 'normalize-space()'. To err is human.

On the other hand, there's a difference between inferring incorrectly
that the thing is a function, and guessing wrong what the function
does (or would do were it a function). That's forgiveable too, but one
still has to learn what it actually is (a path expression) and
actually does (return nodes from the tree).

When quizzed on it, I usually tell the critic that the designers
simply overloaded the syntax here, rather than introduce a new syntax
just for node tests. But the answer to the next question -- whether
the principle of parsimony was correctly applied here -- isn't really
something we can know, since we don't live in a world where 'text()'
is spelled '#text-node' (or whatever). I invite the critic to do this
rewriting in his head (for whatever reason it's usually a him), if he
likes. He is usually grumpy about this (even while his buddy in the
next chair is shrugging amiably).

Ihe is right about one thing: this is all about psychology. What it
comes down to, I think, is not just that people don't like being
exposed in our errancy. Frequently even forgiveness is not enough: we
want vindication. While I can't offer that, exactly, I'm happy to tell
the critic that he has plenty of company.

Cheers, Wendell

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Birnbaum, David J <djbpitt@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear XSLT List,
>
> I'm almost afraid to enter this discussion because it has wandered off in
> non-productive and sometimes embarrassing directions, but I'll take a
> chance and hope that I can say something constructive and useful and that
> any responses (not that any are required or expected) will stay on target:
> What I found confusing about text() when I first began learning XPath is
> that it ends with a pair of parentheses, like string(), which led me to
> the erroneous assumption that it was a function, like string(), and not a
> node test, like *. That's not a complaint about XPath syntax or even an
> inquiry about why things are the way they are. It's just an observation
> that in a world where many things that end in a pair of parentheses are
> functions, it perhaps shouldn't be surprising that beginners
> overgeneralize and assume, incorrectly, that parentheses imply a function
> and that text(), therefore, is a function that says "give me all of the
> textual content (that is, the string value) of something."
>
> Best,
>
> David
>



-- 
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^