W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: I18n comment: Notion of type

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:39:19 +0900
To: www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s3t5ntirx1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:32:08 +0900, <ishida@w3.org> wrote:

>
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/
>
> Comment 2
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-css3-selectors/
> Editorial/substantive: E
> Location in reviewed document:
> General
>
> Comment:
> Your notion of "type": It would be good if you note that there are  
> different notions of types, e.g. the element name as a type (as in the  
> case of CSS) as the XML Schema notion of types.
>
>
>
>> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
>> Sent: 20 January 2006 15:22
>
>> I disagree with #2, the term element type has
>> well-established semantics in XML and SGML, I don't see how
>> explaining that element types are not data types, or
>> personality types, or whatever. We should change s/type
>> element selectors/element type selectors/ in 1.3 though.
>
>
>

It is not the draft which makes the confusion, but the fact that esp. in
the last years of W3C standardization various notion of types have been
created. Since you seem to aim this document for a wider audience, you
might not only technical issues into account, but also readability / wider
context issues.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 14:39:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:50 GMT