- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:51:55 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
People don't seem to be interested in my project of listing requirements, constraints and proposd solutions, but I will persist, as I can no longer keep the proposals straight. Point 1. of my requirements list gives the "desire that parse trees be the same." Under that point, the following explanation should be added. As Chris Maden has reminded us, not having this will break treeloc and the untyped varieties of TEI extended location pointer, because sibling counts will differ, due to pseudo-elements in element content. TEI typed pointers are not affected, because you count elements of a specified type, and so stray pseudo-elements would not be a problem. So we need to add that as an important reason for requiring either identical parse trees, or typed tree locations. It would really be a shame if we define structural markup in a way that makes any class of structural links _less_ dependable than byte offsets! -- David PS. I would welcome additions to the list of "proposed techniques" so that we can understand the proposals. I will repost the modified document and keep it up to date, if people will contribute. At this point, I think everyone posting has made at least 1 different proposal, with various permutations of the same few techniques and goals, and doubtless others that I have omitted. When there are too many straw proposals, I think we must look to explicit goal-setting to make progress. -- David I am not a number. I am an undefined character. _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 1996 11:45:55 UTC