- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:08:44 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5002 ------- Comment #1 from mike@saxonica.com 2007-09-05 12:08 ------- Personal response: although there's a tortuous history here, involving differences of terminology between XML 1.0, XPath 1.0, and XDM, I don't think the XDM spec can be faulted for these definitions. You are reading "root node" as if it were a kind of node, which is a reasonable misunderstanding given the history, but XDM makes it very plain in the section you are quoting that being a root is essentially a relationship between a node and a tree. It's true that the spec uses the term "root node" without a formal definition, but the sentence "Nodes form a tree that consists of a root node plus all the nodes that are reachable directly or indirectly from the root node" is pretty close to a formal definition (of both "root" and "tree") and certainly seems adequate to me.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 12:09:03 UTC