Re: Structural v. semantic markup

Mike Piff (M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk)
Thu, 3 Nov 1994 09:11:38


From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk>
To: www-html@www0.cern.ch
Date:          Thu, 3 Nov 1994 09:11:38 
Subject:       Re: Structural v. semantic markup
Message-Id: <D5D38B46D9@Derwent.shef.ac.uk>

On Wed, 2 Nov 1994 09:27:02 Nick Arnett wrote:
%>
%>Using a tag like <theorem> in a document would seem to cross the fence
%>between the two, I think, which probably isn't a good thing.  What you seem
%>to be suggesting is that you'd use this tag when there's an element of a
%>document which "is a" theorem, a lexical relationship.   So how would you
%>use it?  Writing something like this doesn't seem like a good idea:
%>
%><theorem>Yadda, yadda, yadda</theorem>
%>
This is essentially how it is tagged in LaTeX.  The conventional 
output would be something like either

Theorem 2 Yadda, ...

or 

Theorem 3.2 Yadda, ...

or some other variant, with Theorem in bold; however, depending on 
the *definition* of <theorem>, other output is possible, eg, none, 
different text for "Theorem", no number, ....

If you like, logically, this is a "Theorem", but what a "Theorem" 
really is is defined elsewhere, and can vary according to the context.


%>Instead, tagging along the following lines is much richer and flexible,
%>since it can express relationships that are ambiguous or inexpressible in
%>flat or relational models.
%>
%>Yadda, yadda, yadda<LEX element="paragraph", relationship="is a",
%>content="theorem"><p>
%>

Where would "Theorem 3.2" come from?

Mike Piff
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of %%
%% Sheffield, UK. +44 114 282 4431   e-mail: M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%