On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Graydon <graydon(_at_)marost(_dot_)ca> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:38:55PM +0000, Ihe Onwuka scripsit:
I am arguing against RTFM as a stock response.
There are times when it is definitely appropriate, but I don't think
this is one of them.
"What are the node types used in XML, and how are they defined?" isn't a
question where anyone can be expected to intuit a correct answer.
thats a different question
That's what you'd have to do to understand that "text()" means by
inspection.
Anything can be difficult to comprehend if you give it a quirky
definition. What I am arguing against is the justification for the
combination of
a) doing that
and
b) responding with RTFM
The quirkiness of the definition derives not from the definition
itself, because there may well be justification for the existence of a
node type that encompasses text with embedded comments. Thats OK.
The quirkiness derives from giving it an innocuous intuit inducing
moniker like text() that leads the consumer astray.
Let me parallel. If you call a concept Nothing and then occasionally
allow it to contain Something, RTFTM is not appropriate because the
fault lies in labelling that concept Nothing.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--