W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: DTD for techniques documents

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:00:17 -0700
Message-ID: <01a001c1057c$6d4f1f30$6501a8c0@vaio>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
> IMHO, elements see-also and applies-to should have compulsory(?)
> attributes as the primary pointer. This allows the techniques to be
> machine-processed easier.

Agreed. My reasons for doing otherwise are below.

> I think the content of the description element might as well be HTML, or
> done by using namespaces to include HTML/MathML/whatever. This could be
> achieved by modularisation I think...

Modularization is something I tried and tried and tried, unfortunately, and
it didn't function properly with any of the editors I tried. Hence the
hacked-up HTML block. I'd have preferred to use the %Flow.mix entity just
about anywhere in the document.

> I don't understand why category is a container element - it seems more
> that it should be an attribute to me. (please explain?)

The original DTD was write-optimized, for selfish reasons. I put category in
to absorb category introductions and organize original 1.0 techniques in
their categories, rather than worrying up front about multiple inheritance
issues or building multiple hierarchies. I avoided XLink namespaces because
I wasn't thinking that far ahead. (And for that matter, I did it as a DTD
rather than XML schema because the editors I have don't do schema, or do
them poorly. I'm hoping that this has changed now that I have Visual
Studio.NET beta 2 and Visual XSLT installed, but I guess I'll have to find
out. :)

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 14:00:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC