Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

>James Clark has pointed out to me that in XPath attribute nodes are 
>not children of element nodes. 

>   5.4 Namespace Nodes
>
>   Each element has an associated set of namespace nodes, one for
>   each distinct namespace prefix that is in scope for the element
>   and one for the default namespace if one is in scope for 
>the element.
>   The element is the parent of each of these namespace nodes; however,
>   a namespace node is not a child of its parent element.
>
>

>However, I'm concerned about the logical inconsistency in this 
>statement as currently written. In common usage, both technical and 
>genealogical, the statement that A is the parent of B clearly implies 
>that B is the child of A. Why is this common understanding of 
>language broken here? Is there anything that can be done to fix it?

Could I put a view on this one?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It may be a logical inconsistancy, though
a very practical one, for the reasons you
note.
I don't believe it to be a common understanding
of a broken language, rather a practical solution.

regards, DaveP


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