- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:12:13 -0500
- To: Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
- Message-Id: <AA479424-4894-11D9-AD00-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Le 06 déc. 2004, à 16:24, Roy T. Fielding a écrit : > I suggest that the W3C ask a literature department (like Harvard or > Chicago) > what they think such a style document says to a typical reader, and > perhaps > suggest a more useful signage for definitions that actually calls them > out > in a normative way that doesn't cause experienced technical writers to > go > into fits of perplexity. For example, here is the style for IEEE > specs: That's a good suggestion. They are a few details to clarify. * What is a definition? We define a lot of things in a specification and one would consider that everything which is normative is a definition. Another one would say that it's only testable assertions which are true definitions. And I believe for most of the editors and WGs now is to define terms which might belong to a glossary. And I assume it's what we intend here. * The XMLSpec markup to create definition. For example from: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/REC-xml-20040204.xml http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/Overview.html * XML Version <termref def="dt-xml-doc">XML documents</termref> and <termdef id="dt-xml-doc" term="XML Document"> A data object is an <term>XML document</term> if it is <termref def="dt-wellformed">well-formed</termref>, as defined in this specification. A well-formed XML document <rfc2119>MAY</rfc2119> in addition be <termref def="dt-valid">valid</termref> if it meets certain further constraints.</termdef> * HTML Output Version <a title="XML Document" href="#dt-xml-doc">XML documents</a> [<a name="dt-xml-doc" id="dt-xml-doc" title="XML Document">Definition</a>: A data object is an <b>XML document</b> if it is <a title="Well-Formed" href="#dt-wellformed">well-formed</a>, as defined in this specification. A well-formed XML document <em class="rfc2119" title="Keyword in RFC 2119 context">MAY</em> in addition be <a title="Validity" href="#dt-valid">valid</a> if it meets certain further constraints.] COMMENT: My first problem with output even before the square brackets is… the use of the element "b" to notify an important word. It should be the element "strong", IMHO. <term>something</term> ----> <strong>something</strong> or even <term>something</term> ----> <strong class="term">something</strong> I agree that the use of brackets seems completely inappropriate in this context and another problem is that it doesn't seem that it helps to make a real list of definitions. Square brackets are also used in ***English*** usually in quotations to add additional information, which is less important. For an appropriate example of square brackets: Roy Fielding said “The output chosen for definitions in W3C specs is easily the worst example of spec language abuse [sic] that I have ever seen.” * The XHTML/HTML markup to create definition. For the XHTML output, I would encourage (considering the same example): For the inline mention of the term. <dfn title="XML Document"><a href="#dt-xml-doc">XML documents</a></dfn> And for the final glossary, wrapped with all other defined terms in a "dl" element <dl id="glossary" title="Glossary of XML specification"> […] <dt id="dt-xml-doc">XML Document</dt> <dd>A data object is an <strong class="term">XML document</strong> if it is <a title="Well-Formed" href="#dt-wellformed">well-formed</a>, as defined in this specification. A well-formed XML document <em class="rfc2119" title="Keyword in RFC 2119 context">MAY</em> in addition be <a title="Validity" href="#dt-valid">valid</a> if it meets certain further constraints.</dd> […] </dl> * The visual rendering of the definition (which is easy to achieve.) Some manual of style suggests that it should be in Small Caps, others warn that italics might be a problem if there are words in italics in the definition itself, others to let it as normal text. I would have to explore a bit more, but it's only a question of CSS rules. * The semantics re-use of definitions in a specification. Why I have used dfn and dl, dt, dd, becase these elements have real semantics in HTML and then it defines a possible usage by a semantic extractor, a search engine which would compile definitions, etc. It will help also projects like the W3C Glossary. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2004 00:06:04 UTC