RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @
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
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format