> 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? 

Because language designers always adopt the Humpty Dumpty principle of using
words to mean whatever they choose.

There are far bigger surprises - it's wrong to say logical inconsistencies -
in XPath, for example the fact that A=B and B=C does not imply A=C, or that
A!=B does not imply not(A=B), or indeed that A=A can be false.

Mike Kay


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