Re: Attributes disinherited

Subject: Re: Attributes disinherited
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:20:08 +0100
Well, Francois,

This comes from the "mix the metaphor up with other metaphors to explain
it" school of thought, as opposed to the "switch to a better metaphor or
give a more literal and accurate explanation" school (as does Mike Kay's
suggestion that we talk about "controllers" and "components"). The general
strategy (as you appreciate) is to take things so far over the top that no
one can be in any doubt that we're talking in metaphors. (Sadly, however,
experience tends to show that a certain capacity for irony is requisite.)

That is, it works well if you first understand that we are using metaphors,
and that some slippage between fact and analogy is not only inevitable, but
in some instances, even to be welcomed.

This is on topic for XSLT only insofar as it may serve as a reminder that
"declarative languages work through metaphor, so take due caution" (which
is a claim I might actually be willing to make if I understood more about
declarative languages or, for that matter, metaphors).


At 12:27 PM 6/1/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Very nice turn of phrase, Wendell.
>It certainly helps explain to people how a machine doesn't consider an
>attribute to be a child and yet how an attribute can have a parent
>> Looking at 7.5 also illuminates a point we came across last week -- that
>> attributes are disinherited, not being the children of their parents....

Wendell Piez                            mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.      
17 West Jefferson Street                    Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207                                          Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
  Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread