Dear David,
I don't believe anyone in this thread has argued that newcomers should
not be forgiven for supposing that 'text()' -- or 'node()' or
'comment()' or now 'element()' and 'attribute()' -- is a function like
'string()' and 'normalize-space()'. To err is human.
On the other hand, there's a difference between inferring incorrectly
that the thing is a function, and guessing wrong what the function
does (or would do were it a function). That's forgiveable too, but one
still has to learn what it actually is (a path expression) and
actually does (return nodes from the tree).
When quizzed on it, I usually tell the critic that the designers
simply overloaded the syntax here, rather than introduce a new syntax
just for node tests. But the answer to the next question -- whether
the principle of parsimony was correctly applied here -- isn't really
something we can know, since we don't live in a world where 'text()'
is spelled '#text-node' (or whatever). I invite the critic to do this
rewriting in his head (for whatever reason it's usually a him), if he
likes. He is usually grumpy about this (even while his buddy in the
next chair is shrugging amiably).
Ihe is right about one thing: this is all about psychology. What it
comes down to, I think, is not just that people don't like being
exposed in our errancy. Frequently even forgiveness is not enough: we
want vindication. While I can't offer that, exactly, I'm happy to tell
the critic that he has plenty of company.
Cheers, Wendell
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Birnbaum, David J
<djbpitt(_at_)pitt(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Dear XSLT List,
I'm almost afraid to enter this discussion because it has wandered off in
non-productive and sometimes embarrassing directions, but I'll take a
chance and hope that I can say something constructive and useful and that
any responses (not that any are required or expected) will stay on target:
What I found confusing about text() when I first began learning XPath is
that it ends with a pair of parentheses, like string(), which led me to
the erroneous assumption that it was a function, like string(), and not a
node test, like *. That's not a complaint about XPath syntax or even an
inquiry about why things are the way they are. It's just an observation
that in a world where many things that end in a pair of parentheses are
functions, it perhaps shouldn't be surprising that beginners
overgeneralize and assume, incorrectly, that parentheses imply a function
and that text(), therefore, is a function that says "give me all of the
textual content (that is, the string value) of something."
Best,
David
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--
--
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--