Subject: Re: Parents disinherit their children From: crism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:28:40 -0700 |
[Elliotte Rusty Harold] >However, I'm concerned about the logical inconsistency in this >statement as currently written. In common usage, both technical and >genealogical, the statement that A is the parent of B clearly implies >that B is the child of A. Why is this common understanding of >language broken here? Is there anything that can be done to fix it? It is a little confusing, but it seemed like the best compromise. It seemed clear that attributes and namespace nodes were distinct from children, but it also seemed clear that it would be confusing and cluttering to have two distinct axes to return to the origin of a node. DSSSL uses the origin property for this, but that name didn't fly in a language intended for non-mathematicians. The XLink WG really didn't like calling it "parent", and (I believe) wanted two distinct axes, but the XSL WG felt that the confusion of parent and child being non-symmetric was less than that of having two axes. This is especially true when considering the shortcut syntax: it's not so bad to have child::para/parent::* attribute::class/origin::* but unless you break the formalism, you can't really have the same shortcut, so you'd end up with para/.. @class/@.. or para/.. @class/origin::* or something like that. I think most people won't ever use the full axis names, and will just understand that .. means up one (of anything). -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Exemplary Technologies One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: FO. lists as tables. Re: Q: XML, Dieter Maurer | Thread | RE: Parents disinherit their childr, DPawson |
Re: FO. lists as tables. Re: Q: XML, Christopher R. Maden | Date | Re: FO. lists as tables. Re: Q: XML, Steve Schafer |
Month |