W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > October 2006

Re: [XBL] XBL 2.0 subtree or XML Fragment body

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:08:46 +0900
Message-Id: <42855250-506F-4BF7-A977-2B31B050058B@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Note to myself, separate issues in terms of Editorial and Technical.

Le 6 oct. 06 à 07:42, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> 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.

Fair enough. Though difficult to test.

> 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.

The comment was made to try to minimize a side effect. People outside  
W3C Working Groups when reading our specifications send comments  
saying that there are too many ways of saying the same thing, for  
example, the translators communities.

> 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.

no needs to push further the issue.

Thanks for your answer Ian and Bjoern (separate thread).

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 6 October 2006 01:08:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:16 UTC