Subject: Re: [xsl] When to use text()|
From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:19:32 +0000
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Graydon <graydon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:38:55PM +0000, Ihe Onwuka scripsit: >> I am arguing against RTFM as a stock response. >> >> There are times when it is definitely appropriate, but I don't think >> this is one of them. > > "What are the node types used in XML, and how are they defined?" isn't a > question where anyone can be expected to intuit a correct answer. > thats a different question > > That's what you'd have to do to understand that "text()" means by > inspection. > Anything can be difficult to comprehend if you give it a quirky definition. What I am arguing against is the justification for the combination of a) doing that and b) responding with RTFM The quirkiness of the definition derives not from the definition itself, because there may well be justification for the existence of a node type that encompasses text with embedded comments. Thats OK. The quirkiness derives from giving it an innocuous intuit inducing moniker like text() that leads the consumer astray. Let me parallel. If you call a concept Nothing and then occasionally allow it to contain Something, RTFTM is not appropriate because the fault lies in labelling that concept Nothing.