[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @

Subject: RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @
From: John Robert Gardner <jrgardn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:30:10 -0400 (EDT)
attributes of afis
On Fri, 26 May 2000 paulo.gaspar@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> 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?


Paulo:

Yes, thanks much for your help.  To clarify:  

My current prject is, in fact, to speak informally of Xpath in a document
about it.  However, as I have found that, to the uninitiated, the blurring
that can happen is a problem, such as always using "type" and "name" in
examples of attributes, can confuse a novice reader when I am using proper
terminology: "attribute type name" -- which at the least can be redundant
or confusing.  Same with the parent/child attribute issue.  conceptually,
yes, but terminologically, it blurs key conceptual lines.

Please, again, know that I appreciate all efforts to make these spec's
human readable.

jr


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
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
> 
> 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
> 


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


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.