• To: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Subject: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:32:20 -0400
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECF31@S...>
• References: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECF31@S...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

Hunsberger, Peter wrote:


> I don't get the distinction.  As soon as you've got a graph you've got a
> tree (or perhaps many trees).
> 

Not necessarily. All trees are graphs but not all graphs are trees. For 
instance a pure tree can't represent a cycle but a graph can. XML's rule 
that a node can only have one parent is not a limit of graphs in general.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Burak Emir <Burak.Emir@e...>

• References:
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: RE: Describing hierarchies with XML
• Previous by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread