[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] more on "subelement signicance"
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:59:04 -0400
You took the words right out of my mouth with 1). As for your
argument, be careful. As Len said, the philosophers are going to start
pipin' up. :-) Why is it really that you know what's meant by xref and
Michael A. Rossi
Computer Sciences Corporation
(LNG)" To: xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
nexis.com> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] more on "subelement signicance"
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
some meaning, one or more of (namespace, document type, parent element)
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
their namespace, document type, or parent, e.g. xref and emph. (I would
out h1, <a href=""/>, and p as examples because we generally do assume a
particular doctype for them based on common usage.)