Re: RS/RE, again (sorry)
At 08:20 AM 12/17/96 -0800, Jon Bosak wrote:
>| >[Chris Maden:]
>| >| 3) A dichotomy between "DTD-ful" and DTD-less parsing will make any
>| >| sibling-based relationship difficult at best; this will affect some
>| >| TEI or HyQ based hyperlinks, as well as sibling-based stylistic
>| >| decisions.
>| >Sorry to be so slow here, but what's the connection with sibling
>| >relationships? My idea of a well-formed XML document is one for which
>| >there is just one possible tree structure; what's different about
>| >sibling relationships if a DTD is provided?
>To which a kind correspondent replied:
>| A DTD-less parser will interpret element-content whitespace as a #PCDATA
>| node. A DTD-full parser will just strip it out. The number of nodes in your
>| document will change.
>| Each newline will be a node in one, and not the other.
>Allow me to wallow in ignorance a bit further. I'm finding it hard to
>visualize a situation in which I would want to address something based
>on pseudo-element relationships rather than "genuine" tree
>relationships. It's easy to imagine cases where I would want to refer
>to the TITLE descendant of my ancestor CHAPTER, for example, but I
>have never wanted to refer to the third linefeed in an element. I'm
>not saying that such situations are inconceivable, I'm just saying
>that I've never encountered one. Is this one of those cases where 90
>percent of the complexity we're worrying about is being caused by a
>feature that in practice is used .001 percent of the time?
the problem is that one tree would look like:
"that which is not slightly distorted lacks sensible appeal: from which it
that irregularity - that is to say, the unexpected, surprise, and astonishment,
are an essential part and characteristic of beauty" - Charles Baudelaire