RE: Matching Attributes with @

On Fri, 26 May 2000, Kay Michael wrote:

> Confusion upon confusion!
> 
> > On Fri, 26 May 2000, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > Each element node can have 2 basic types of descendent nodes:
> > >  - Content;
> > >  - Attributes.
> 
> Paulo wrote wrong. Attributes are not descendents of the element they belong
> to, in the technical sense of the word.
> > 
> > I remember a comment some time ago on this . . . that attributes are
> > descendents . . . wouldn't they be children? -- of their containing
> > element node, or context element node.  So the element can 
> > have attribute
> > children.  ...  So @ are children, but those children do not have parents?
> 
> > 
> 
> Actually, you've come to exactly the opposite of the truth. An element is
> the parent of its attributes, but the attributes are not children of the
> element.

Thanks Michael.  I couldn't make it work with what was written, so I
thought I should extend the logic and check with the list on it.  Now that
I read it, it makes perfect sense.  As I was writing, I couldn't make it
work in my head so thought I'd check.

Saadhu!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
John Robert Gardner, Ph.D.
XML Engineer
Emory University
------------------------------------------------------------
http://vedavid.org/diss/
"There is a difference between knowing The Path, and walking the Path."
					-Lawrence Fishburn/Morpheus


> 
> And if that seems absurd, just substitute some non-biological words like
> "controller" and "component" for "parent" and "child", and it doesn't seem
> so bad.
> 
> Mike K
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list