Subject: RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @ From: John Robert Gardner <jrgardn@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:30:10 -0400 (EDT) |
On Fri, 26 May 2000 paulo.gaspar@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Keep in mind that I am talking in a figurative way. This > way of thinking helped me to understand some template/XPath > related issues, but I am NOT being precise and I am NOT being > formal. Just figurative. > > I say "tree" and "nodes" in a data-structures-like kind of > vocabulary, as in the "nodes" of a binary "tree". > > In this informal perspective, wouldn't the element - to > which an attribute belongs - be its parent? Paulo: Yes, thanks much for your help. To clarify: My current prject is, in fact, to speak informally of Xpath in a document about it. However, as I have found that, to the uninitiated, the blurring that can happen is a problem, such as always using "type" and "name" in examples of attributes, can confuse a novice reader when I am using proper terminology: "attribute type name" -- which at the least can be redundant or confusing. Same with the parent/child attribute issue. conceptually, yes, but terminologically, it blurs key conceptual lines. Please, again, know that I appreciate all efforts to make these spec's human readable. jr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-= John Robert Gardner, Ph.D. XML Engineer Emory University ------------------------------------------------------------ http://vedavid.org/diss/ "There is a difference between knowing The Path, and walking the Path." -Lawrence Fishburn/Morpheus > > What I said is that attributes have no descendents/children. > > > Have fun, > > Paulo > > > > --- Original Message --- > > John Robert Gardner <jrgardn@xxxxxxxxx> Wrote on > > On Fri, 26 May 2000, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > > > > Think of an XML document as a tree of nodes. There is > > > nothing else than that. > > > > This would be consistent with the post elsewhere > > today on this matching @ thread, that matching an @ does > > not match the element node that contains it. To do so > > one would have > to do "*[@foo]", correct? > > So @ are children, but those children do not have > > parents? > > > > > ----- > Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) > The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere! > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @, paulo . gaspar | Thread | Portal applications using XSL, Hoad, Richard (AFIS) |
RE: Re: Context node/Predicates in , paulo . gaspar | Date | RE: Matching Attributes with @, John Robert Gardner |
Month |