- From: Chris Tilbury <C.J.Tilbury@estate.warwick.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:03:55 BST
- To: Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>, www-html@www10.w3.org
On 19 Jul 95 at 2:24, Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > There are *way* too many of them! [snip] > * CODE and KBD are really no more than instances of SAMP, > and are much to specific in application. Agreed; <SAMP class="code.sql">Select * from Table.Name;</SAMP> <SAMP class="code.basic">If I>50 Then I=I-1</SAMP> <SAMP class="user.input">delf *.*</SAMP> <SAMP class="user.output">Why hasn't this damn thing worked!</SAMP> > * AU and PERSON are too similar to merit separate elements; > i think PERSON is a good idea, but i'd think more of > adding attributes to PERSON like ROLE="author", > EMAIL="...", HREF="...", and so on. (I lament that the > "mailto:" URL is used currently in many cases where > the real meaning is to provide information about a person.) > But introducing <AU> would be a mistake, for it invites > <PROGRAMMER>, <PRESIDENT>, <FIREMAN>, <BUTCHER>, <BAKER>, > <CANDLESTICKMAKER>... Certainly agree with you on this one; Although another attribute isn't even needed - you could use <PERSON class="document.author">Lois Lane</PERSON> <PERSON class="server.administrator">Peter Parker</PERSON> <PERSON class="president.dead">Abraham Lincoln</PERSON> and subclass to your hearts content. > * ACRONYM and ABBREV are also far too similar -- though in my > opinion, marking up ACRONYM and ABBREV when you already > have DFN is about as useful as marking up VERB and NOUN. A small point, perhaps, but in (english) language terms an acronym is something quite distinct from an abbrevation, although I agree with your sentiment; <DFN class="language.acronym">RIBA</DFN> <DFN class="language.abbrevation">CEng</DFN> and even <DFN class="language.colloqiualism">*!$@%&@~*</DFN> :-) (Hey, I /liked/ the Asterix books!) would all suffice perfectly. > * INS and DEL are two prime examples of highly-specific tags > oriented at vertical applications (in this case legalese). Hmm. Actually, both INS and DEL could be useful in many more applications than merely "legalese", where a record is needed to be kept of revisions made to a document; <P class="abstract">This experiment was into the effects of giving purple mango juice to <DEL date="30/04/95 12:30:03 GMT" revisioner="Mickey.Mouse@disney">thirty white mice</DEL><INS date="30/04/95 12:30:03 GMT" revisioner="Donald.Duck@disney">30 laboratory conditioned test subjects</INS>.</P> Although as they stand, since they convey next to no information /about/ the changes, I agree they're pretty nearly pointless, and they could be replaced with just a single <REVISION> element with a type attribute (type="deletion" or type="insertion") > I'd just as soon get rid of ALL of the above tags, except for > PERSON. I really do not see the need. Probably DFN would be more > useful if replaced by something less specific, like TERM, to > indicate merely that a term needs defining (hinting to make it > look-up-able). > > <Q> and <BLOCKQUOTE> are identical in meaning. They should be the > same tag. Whether a quotation is presented embedded or blocked out > can be specified in an attribute. Hmm - I don't think it can. The content model of <Q> is %text[1], whereas the content model of <BLOCKQUOTE> is %body.content, %flow, and %block[2]. I don't think you can alter the content model of an element using an attribute, but I may be wrong? Perhaps we should all have a "class" drive? [snip] References [1] <URL:http://www.hpl.hp.co.uk/people/dsr/html/text.html> [2] <URL:http://www.hpl.hp.co.uk/people/dsr/html/blockquotes.html> Regards, Chris -- Chris Tilbury, Estates Office, University of Warwick, UK, CV4 7AL Tel: +44 1203 523523 x2665 Fax: +44 1203 524444 MIME mail welcomed mailto:Chris.Tilbury@estate.warwick.ac.uk
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 1995 07:04:44 UTC