On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:48:49 -0400, you wrote:

>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?

Perhaps it would be better to say that a node is the "owner" of its
attributes and the "parent" of its children.

-Steve Schafer


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