W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [BULK] - Re: [XHTML2] Spirit of "1.1.3. XHTML 2 and Presentation" (PR#7759)

From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:31:24 +0100
Message-ID: <43FF6D1C.7030705@gmail.com>
To: Paul Mitchell <paul@paul-mitchell.me.uk>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Paul Mitchell wrote:
>> It's important that we figure out exactly what these elements should 
>> contain (possibly XML?) and then choose the most appropriate names.
>
> The trouble is that there are hundreds of eqally appropriate names. 
> Sorry to get biblical on you, but one always finds the answers to 
> seemingly impossible problems in the bible.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#NT-Name
>
> XML, being a UNICODE protocol, allows element names to be in any human 
> language. For any element name to have a truly "generic" meaning, it 
> should have transliterative synonyms in the *same namespace* for 
> non-English users at least, and literal synonyms for all language 
> users. More people may speak English than any other language, but more 
> people speak all other languages than speak any one, and English isn't 
> a single language anyway, so a universal XML naming scheme must 
> accomodate that, otherwise it goes against the 6th "XML documents 
> should be human-legible and reasonably clear", 9th "XML documents 
> shall be easy to create" and 10th "Terseness in XML markup is of 
> minimal importance." commandments.
I don't think "presentation" and "behavior" are any worse than "lang" or 
"base". The default XML elements, attributes, processing instructions, 
etc. are based on English (e.g. <?xml-stylesheet?>), and I see no 
problem keeping it that way. I say we find the best *English* name for 
the element types.


Cheers,
Daniel
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 20:31:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:43 GMT