At 17:11 05/08/10, Tex Texin wrote: > >I prefer nesting of xml elements to reflect the semantic relationship of >the elements. Me too! >That is not necessarily the same as the presentation relationships. Not necessarily, but with extremely high probability. Can you provide a reasonable counterexample? >Also the relationship between runs is not always to embed (or pop) a >level. Sometimes there will be sibling relationships, which to maintain >presentation ordering will need some sequencing attributes. Could you give an example? That would make it easier to immagine what you are speaking about. >(All in all, >I think I prefer control codes for all of this. ;-) ) In more than 99%, to be very conservative, the bidi embeddings/overrides correspond to logical document structure. Using control codes would only create a mess. There remains the issue of attributes, but a) control codes in attributes are well isolated and don't interfere with markup b) putting running text in attributes is a bad idea for many other reasons Regards, Martin.Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 10:46:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 August 2008 18:35:21 GMT