W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

Re: Link-2: Pseudo-elements

From: Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 14:20:35 GMT
Message-Id: <6801@ursus.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
In message <3.0.32.19970518111401.00b18a30@pop.intergate.bc.ca> Tim Bray writes:
> What does CHILD(N) mean in mixed content?  Counting pseudo-elements
> is icky to start with, but with our shakiness as to white space in
> element content, it's even shakier.  James has suggested just
> bagging the whole pseudo-element handling thing.  Comments?
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does this refer just to addressing (pseudo)elements or to the whole
question of whitespace handling?

As we've mentioned, a parsed document may have a different number of
pseudoelements after parsing according to whether validation is switched
on or off.  Therefore unless *that* problem is solved, I think the current
problem is insoluble.

Note that we can always identify mixed content even from WF documents.  
So is the question:
	should we abandon CHILD(N) completely 
OR
	should CHILD(N) be undefined if one or more elements are #PCDATA?

I would NOT like to abandon CHILD(N) for element content.  It's perfectly
reasonable to write:

<PARENT>
<DAUGHTER/>
<SON/>
<DAUGHTER/>
</PARENT>

and ask for CHILD(2).  It would be very difficult if we lose this.

	P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection
Virtual School of Molecular Sciences
http://www.vsms.nottingham.ac.uk/
Received on Sunday, 18 May 1997 12:22:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC