- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:49:46 +0100
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Johannes Koch wrote: > > Johannes Koch schrieb: >> Carlos Iglesias schrieb: >>> - Some times the same vocabulary as in the XML specification is used >>> (e.g. xmlDecl, docTypeDecl...), >> >> That was just by chance :-) >> >>> but other the "official" names are not used. (e.g. xmlVersion instead >>> of xmlVersionNum or xmlEncoding instead of xmlEncName) >>> >>> May we need to be consistent on this for the sake of clarity? >> >> Meybe, yes. > > I just looked at the XML 1.0 spec (<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/>). The > relevant terminology there is: > > XML spec DOM spec > --------------------------------------------- > XMLDecl > VersionNum xmlVersion > EncName xmlEncoding > (SDDecl) xmlStandalone > doctypedecl doctype / DocumentType > Name name > PubidLiteral publicId > SystemLiteral systemId > intSubset internalSubset > > I think the DOM approach is more what we want. We also have types and > properties. However, I don't like calling the property for the document > type name just "name". I agree with using the DOM approach, the terms seem more expressive. I also agree with the "name"-issue. Maybe use "doctypename" instead? Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:49:57 UTC