Hi Patrick,
Patrick Durusau wrote:
> ...
>> Have you any bad feelings with the second attribute based approach?
>>
> If I am reading it correctly it looks like you have a milestone in the
> first one and an open/close element in the second, although they are
> concatenated. Yes?
How do you define a milestone, is a start/end tag a milestone? I guess
here is a misunderstanding. I don't like approach of start & end flags.
I will expand the example of the solution I prefer to the following:
<p><span/><span meta:class="foo"/><span
meta:class="foo">blahblah</span></p>
<p><span meta:class="foo">something</span><span
meta:class="foo"><span/></p>
All elements with @meta:class="foo" are of the same semantic and define
an area, which is not related to the XML hierarchy.
In this special case - representing an alternative to a start & end tag
- this area is a sequence of content, but it might be as well clustered
all over the content.xml.
>
> Steve DeRose actually did a presentation at Extreme Markup on a
> variation we developed for a Bible encoding project where there are
> two milestone elements that are linked by startID and endID (only one
> allowed in each) to deal with overlapping markup. Your xsl:key
> suggestion would work here.
>
> I have misgivings about the use of a milestone plus a more normal
> start/end tag. Mixing markup techniques as it were seems prone to
> problems.
>
> Would you allow two milestones in addition to milestone plus a regular
> element?
>
> That would give implementers two ways to accomplish the same end, not
> often a good idea.
>
Hopefully the questions above settled by clarifying the intended approach.
Cheers,
Svante.
