Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Pavel Velikhov <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:42:07 -0800
"Clark C. Evans" wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Joshua E. Smith wrote:
> > Sure, you can normalize this to:
> > <Thing>
> > <Id>foo</Id>
> > </Thing>
> > But, well.... yuck. This is just... strange.
> > Doesn't it strike you as perverse to dive into the sub-elements of an
> > element to get a handle to the parent?
> Yes it does. It also requires that the _entire_ element be read
> in (till its end tag is encountered) just in the case that a child
> provides details which modify the parent -- in this case, the
> parent's identifier.
But every child provides details that modify the parent.
Consider this element:
And then the following element:
Same problem here, right? Every child modifies the parent.
Should not these cases be all semantically equivalent?
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)