W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Content-in-RDF stable draft

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:49:46 +0100
Message-ID: <47D825CA.2060701@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Johannes Koch wrote:
> 
> Johannes Koch schrieb:
>> Carlos Iglesias schrieb:
>>> - Some times the same vocabulary as in the XML specification is used 
>>> (e.g. xmlDecl, docTypeDecl...),
>>
>> That was just by chance :-)
>>
>>> but other the "official" names are not used. (e.g. xmlVersion instead 
>>> of xmlVersionNum or xmlEncoding instead of xmlEncName)
>>>
>>> May we need to be consistent on this for the sake of clarity?
>>
>> Meybe, yes.
> 
> I just looked at the XML 1.0 spec (<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/>). The 
> relevant terminology there is:
> 
> XML spec                    DOM spec
> ---------------------------------------------
> XMLDecl
> VersionNum                  xmlVersion
> EncName                     xmlEncoding
> (SDDecl)                    xmlStandalone
> doctypedecl                 doctype / DocumentType
> Name                        name
> PubidLiteral                publicId
> SystemLiteral               systemId
> intSubset                   internalSubset
> 
> I think the DOM approach is more what we want. We also have types and 
> properties. However, I don't like calling the property for the document 
> type name just "name".

I agree with using the DOM approach, the terms seem more expressive. I 
also agree with the "name"-issue. Maybe use "doctypename" instead?


Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:49:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:49:58 GMT