[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] more on "subelement signicance"
- From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
- To: xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 22:36:17 -0400
Michael Rossie wrote:
>Why is it really that you know what's meant by xref and
>emph?
and Len Bullard wrote:
>The way to know if it is useful is to know
>the test for utility (what properties must be
>accounted for to identify the pattern as a member
>of a known set or to engage a mediator to find a
>set, or to engage a collaborator to define a set).
and Simon St. L wrote:
>> So you would say that content in two different contexts is still the same
>> content?
>
>I'd suggest that it depends entirely on what the reader makes of it, as
>usual.
so I'm writing:
Walter Perry must be having an awfully busy week if he hasn't jumped in on
this thread. I believe it doesn't misstate his general philosophy if I say
that ultimately, when a given element serves the purpose of the party at the
receiving end, then it's useful. Len and Simon said this same thing from two
other angles in the quotes above. A DTD, doctype, namespace, parent element,
or knowledge of tribal customs (as in the case of xref, emph, a href, h1, p,
etc.) can give the party clues as to the element's usefulness. Then, if they
can use it, it's useful.
Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@
snee.com> "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy
spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii