[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] more on "subelement signicance"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:49:58 -0500
I'd keep <a and <p because we see the first
used so often and the second used so often
and in multiple doctypes. Frequency affects
usefulness (careful... we are about to drop
into the arcana of information theory and
semiotics (is it a sign, a symbol, or a signal)) :-)
From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Seairth Jacobs wrote:
>The usefulness of any given subelement is due to the knowledge of its
>namespace, document type, and/or parent element. Without any of the
>three the subelement does not have a useful meaning.
I can think of many specific questions, but I'll start with the general
1. Why subelement? Why not "The usefulness of any given element"?
2. The "and/or" confuses me. Are you saying that, for a (sub)element to have
some meaning, one or more of (namespace, document type, parent element) must
be known? That if only one is known, the element may have some usefulness?
(I'm not arguing this point, just looking for some clarification.)
Now I'll argue: there are certain element type names used often enough in
enough contexts that their usefulness can be inferred without knowing either
their namespace, document type, or parent, e.g. xref and emph. (I would rule
out h1, <a href=""/>, and p as examples because we generally do assume a
particular doctype for them based on common usage.)