- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:50:59 +0000
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 09:38 27/1/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote: >1. Don't Panic There's absolutely no need to - its a superb first draft. The following comments are just some points that struck me on the initial read through. Is there any reason why the model for -XML-MLINK is restricted to PCDATA and -XML-END elements? Would it be more suitable to say something like ANY +(-XML-END) -(XML-MLINK|-XML-ALINK) or would this be too all encompassing? Is there a case for making at least one -XML-END compulsory? Again the restriction of links end data to just PCDATA may be restrictive. (I have a particular case in mind, which came up yeseterday, where I want italics to emphasis part of the link end text. Same applies to -XML-ALINK, which currently would not be sufficient to mimic the HTML <A> element. LOCSRC cannot currently be defined be pointing to HyTime addresses, or to anything else that I can see a way of creating a location ladder from. Does this mean that the phrase "may be a complex chain of relative pointers" in the description of locators only refers to TEI relative queries? Why is * used in the model of -XML-XLG rather than +? Under what conditions can the -XML-XLD information be omitted? What is the reason for the hyphen after XHL in the attribute name? (XHL-=XLG looks wierd!) In general section 5 needs rewriting. (If I can get to grips with what it is trying to say I'll take a stab at this next week if no-one else has done so in the meantime.) ---- Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 1997 04:53:40 UTC