Subject: RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @ From: paulo.gaspar@xxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:16:17 -0700 |
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? 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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Matching Attributes with @, paulo . gaspar | Thread | RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @, John Robert Gardner |
Re: can we use html objects in xsl, Mike Brown | Date | RE: Re: Context node/Predicates in , paulo . gaspar |
Month |