I made the distinction for purely aesthetic reasons. I found it strange in
the antecedent of (attribute compete) to use p1 ~ p2, since that would more
general than strictly necessary, in that it would handle attributes inside
attributes. However, it would work perfectly well without the distinction.
I can see that it might be confusing to make the distinction.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Section 7.4
I don't think the distinction between ~e and ~ is necessary.
For the (element compete 2) rule, if p_1 \sim p_2 and there exists p_3
such that p_1 [n]_e p_3, then apparently p_1 is an element (because
attributes cannot contain an element pattern p_3). Thus p_1 \sim p_2.
The similar inference holds for the (attribute) rule.
... maybe I'm just showing my ignorance here ...
regards,
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:
