RE: RE: Matching Attributes with @

[paulo dot gaspar at krankikom dot de]

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?

What I said is that attributes have no descendents/children.


Have fun,

Paulo


> --- Original Message ---
> John Robert Gardner <jrgardn@emory.edu> 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