I'm really psyched to hear about the work done at last week's meeting. I did notice that there are semantic groupings such as informal objects next to formatting groupings such as verbatim; I bet most of the verbatim elements would more usefully go into a semantic grouping. You could use this test: Among which elements would I want to choose when faced with a piece of information that needs marking up?
E.g., when trying to insert a code example into a document, you might decide you want example, informalexample, programlisting, screen, or even screenshot or synopsis! We might not want to mix formal and informal objects into the same class because we want to restrict where titled things can appear, but this exercise can be handy (and it's better to make fine class distinctions than gross ones because you can add a bunch of classes to any one mixture). You'll need to ensure eventually that elements don't appear in more than one group. It gets hard to avoid content model ambiguity when the same element appears in multiple class entities.
Eve At 10:29 AM 3/3/00 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Ok, between ORD and BDL I redrafted the categorized list. I think
>this makes a fairly good starting point for our reparameterization
>efforts. >
>Mostly I grouped by inline/block/function. >
>Comments, please.
--
Eve Maler
Sun Microsystems elm @ east.sun.com
+1 781 442 3190
