- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:22:09 +0100
- To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
Carlos Iglesias schrieb: >>> 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. So it'll be more or less the same as in the current draft :-) -- Johannes Koch BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 22:22:53 UTC