- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:11:57 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Dave Cramer <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:18:43 -0800 Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been giving some attention named strings in the latest GCPM draft [1]. I have some issues and comments. I'll start with the things I think are problems, and then I'll propose how I'd like to see it improve. Brad, agree 100% that string-set is sucky. There are several problems I see, one of which is that we're supposed to be declarative and assignment sounds awfully procedural, but a bigger one is that (as you point out) strings are not adequate. Some quick comments.... There's a proposal in one of the GCPM drafts to be able to copy an element (right now you can only move it into the flow of another element using GCPM, which means you can end up with extra duplicate elements all over the place). Basing content flows on the spec that defines content flows (regions) seems on the face of it very sensible and I agree we should explore it. It's so common to need a mix of fixed strings, formatted strings and element content that the solution should make that easy -- e.g. consider page numbers like 003-14 14.2.1 The Section Title Here [ short form of current lemma title ] where the chapter number is 2 digits, there's a fixed hyphen before the page number, and the running header contains MathML (or Japanese Ruby)... Rather than keywords (content, text, attribute...) maybe a function should use CSS seclectors? Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Sunday, 23 November 2014 00:12:00 UTC