Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "James Tauber" <email@example.com>
- To: "John Cowan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:01:44 +0800
> > Mind you, I need to be able to map more than one character.
> But still a 1-1 mapping? That would be easy to incorporate.
I was initially concerned that what I wanted involved context-sensitive
mapping but I no longer think it does, so, yes, it should be easy.
> > This sounds like a job for notations, where each mapname is a notation.
> But XML notations don't have attributes, so what is gained?
I was thinking of just the association of map with element (ie the first
PI). If I understand correctly, your first PI associates the mapping with
all elements of a named type. I would like the flexibility of being able to
control that on an element-by-element basis.
An attribute seems a good way of doing this (if all elements of a type have
the same mapping, you can have an attribute default). So what you end up
with is an attribute that, in effect, is saying how to process the character
data in the content (sounds like a notation attribute right?)
It would be useful, I think, to make such a specification independent of the
particular usage by the LocalMarkupFilter. Other applications might want to
know about it to. So a more general solution, IMHO, would be to have the
mapping triggered by notation.
In fact, rather than *replacing* your first PI, that PI could remain but
instead map a mapname to a notation.
To me that is more in the spirit of descriptive/generic markup.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)