W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > December 1996

Re: RS/RE, again (sorry)

From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:25:28 -0800
Message-Id: <v02130503aeddb4152372@[]>
To: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak), w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Cc: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
At 6:24 PM 12/17/96, Jon Bosak wrote:
>[Chris Maden, summarizing a number of replies to my question:]
>| TEI and, I believe, HyQ, use sibling relationships for addressing;
>| e.g., start at the element whose SGML ID is "foo" and traverse three
>| nodes to the right.
>| If DTD-less parsing creates spurious CDATA nodes, then the target of
>| an address can be different from that for a DTD-ful parse.
>What this seems to add up to is that treeloc uses a different way of
>thinking about what a sibling is than I do.  Frankly, I like my way
>better.  I can see where defining pseudo-elements as nodes could be
>useful in addressing arbitrary spans of text, but if the price for
>resolving our problem is that the only elements that I can address in
>XML are the real ones, then that is a price I would be willing to pay.

  TEI (I can't speak to the HyTime TC) gets this right in that an
unlabelled number addresses Nodes (including pseudo-data nodes), but you
can also index labelled elements (2nd LI in this list) and that will not

   But you do need to be able to address arbitrary characters, so the
pseudo-nodes should be addressible somehow...

  -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 1996 15:25:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC