- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:40:07 +0100
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi, > > 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? +1 for the DOM approach and the "doctypeName" option. Regards, CI. __________________ Carlos Iglesias Fundación CTIC Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón 33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España teléfono: +34 984291212 fax: +34 984390612 email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 17:40:29 UTC