- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:08:46 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
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). ok. > 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