- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:15:57 -0500
- To: Svgdeveloper@aol.com
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ Svgdeveloper@aol.com was heard to say:
| Can a root node which is not a document node be a parent node?
|
| The last sentence in 4 implies that a fragment has a "root node" which is not
| a document node. Can such a "root node" have child nodes or, more precisely,
| be a parent node?
The answer is yes, and I'm not sure how the confusion arises. That a
node is a root is independent of its other accessors. In any event,
the sections on both the parent accessor and on root nodes have been
reworded in the 12 Nov draft. Is the new wording clear?
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE/skCdOyltUcwYWjsRAh4vAJsFgevwvTHzaeGu/dL8+zrojRH8mACdHf8Y
jDeWIVvya8qiEeSyVnVbSo8=
=i2N2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 20:17:03 UTC