- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:42:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: karl@w3.org
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0610052226330.19875@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 karl@w3.org wrote: > > About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/#terminology > > In the terminology of XML Fragment, an "XBL subtree" is defined as > "fragment body" [...] > > What about saying: An XBL subtree is a fragment body in an XML > documentâ It isn't clear to me that this would be beneficial to the readers of the XBL specification. The XML Fragment specification is not a widely read one amongst the target audience of the XBL spec, so terms from that specification should probably not be assumed to be well understood. Also, the term "subtree" is well-understood in computer science, and the key part of the definition of "XBL subtree" is the root of the subtree being an <xbl> element, it isn't the "subtree" part (which is the only part of the definition that would change if we used "fragment body" instead). Finally, the term you cite from the XML Fragment specification is defined in terms of the lexical representation of an XML document, whereas in XBL there might never actually be a lexical representation -- an XBL subtree can exist purely in the form of a DOM tree constructed using DOM methods. Therefore the vaguer definition as currently given is actually more accurate in the context of XBL. In conclusion, I do not feel your proposal would be a good one, and have therefore not made any change to the specification. However, if you disagree, please let me know, so that your disagreement can be clearly marked in the disposition of comments. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 22:42:53 UTC