- From: Sean Champ <symmetry_web@email.msn.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:38:44 -0800
- To: "Arjun Ray" <aray@q2.net>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
thanks for the link, Arjun :)
----------------------------------
as far as I know, "boolean" has been around a lot longer than "HTML",
and :
<posit
id="language::EN::semantics"
>
<Whereas>
"Boolean" is more of a child-object of "english", the latter of which
seems to have spawned the child-object "SGML"
</Whereas>
<point>
I don't see why "boolean" shouldn't be a possible attribute-type
in the (container | object ) "SGML", as well.
</point>
</posit>
----------------------------------
<posit
id="language::EN::definition.boolean"
>
<Whereas>
<quote>
<excerpt>
Boolean
adjcective.
1) Of or relating to a logical combinatorial system treating
variables, such as propositions and computer logic elements, through the
operators AND, OR, NOT, and XOR: a browser that supports Boolean searches.
2) Of or relating to a data type or variable in a programming language
that can have one of two values, true or false.
</excerpt>
<source>
<name>
The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition,
© 1996, 1992 , Houghton Mifflin Company.
</name>
<uri>
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=boolean
</uri>
</quote>
</Whereas>
<point>
<by
"definition.boolean(
Dictionary.AmericanHeritage::word.boolean::Definition.number1 )"
>
<value.returned>
setting a value to "1" or "0", or any other set identifier, does seem fairly "boolean", if it's meant as part of an "if...then" sequence for a parser (human, or otherwise) to interpret.
</value.returned>
</by>
<by
id="definition::boolean(
Dictionary.AmericanHeritage::word.boolean::Def.number2 )"
>
<value.returned>
the quality "boolean"
of
an attribute with possible val
ues "0" or "1"
if
"0"="false"
and
"1"="true"
is
implicit.
</value.returned>
</by>
</point>
</posit>
----------------------------------
<posit
id="XHTML::Semantics"
>
<question>
would it be more acceptible, to whomever (people) or whatever (software or
language-specifications) [ who | that ] have a problem with it, if we use
the word "binary" instead of "boolean" ?
</question>
<point>
instead of redundant declarations like
<dl compact="compact">
<!--
which,
if "compact" has to be written twice,
does have
<flag redundancy="yes" />
about it
-->
let's use:
<dl compact="1">
instead.
</point>
<optionally>
...and throw a link into the TR explaining what "binary" is about.
</optionally>
<qualifier>
though, as far as I can tell from the currently-known information,
there should be no problem with using a "boolean" system for specifying the
attribute-values here,
unless
someone is simply trying to highlight a point about
saying
"boolean attribute"
instead of
"boolean attribute.value"
...or otherwise.
</qualifier>
</posit>
----------------------------------
<posit
id="XHTML::extensibility"
>
<Whereas>
the XML specification is freely available for the public.
</Whereas>
<point>
if someone wants to say...
<dl compact="compact">
... or
if they want to say...
<dl compact="somethingOtherwiseUnsupported">
...let them modify the attlist for "DL", to include "compact" as a
possible attribute-value, making their new DTD seperate and distinct from
the XHTML DTD.
</point>
</posit>
----------------------------------
<posit
id="Important:::work.towards::internationalization"
>
<Whereas>
HTML is still english-centric
</Whereas>
<point>
using
<nmtoken compact="1">
to specify the same as:
<nmtoken compact>
...should help with the internationalization of XHTML.
ie:
numbers are relatively language-neutral.
compact="compact"
...is relatively _not_ language-neutral.
</point>
</posit>
----------------------------------
I hope that we can come to an agreement about this.
--Sean Champ
<postscript>
has the IETF done anything about, or towards, devising a form-mail for
sending to administrators of web-sites that could use a URI-tidy?
it might seem "snippish" or otherwise, but perhapps it would carry a point,
none the less.
</postscript>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arjun Ray" <aray@q2.net>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: XHTML : "attribute minimization", terseness of.
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Sean Champ wrote:
>
> > in re. section 4.5 at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
> >
> > can we use boolean values like <dl compact="1">
> >
> > instead of redundant ones like <dl compact="compact">
>
> 1. It's not really redundant. The *name* didn't have to be
> 'compact'. That is, in the "old style" <dl compact>, the
> 'compact' is the attribute *value*.
>
> 2. There is no such thing as "boolean" in SGML/XML. This
> bogotic terminology came to life in the HTML 4.x specs
> and has caused nothing but confusion ever since. See
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=580535642
>
> and the entire thread (I tried copying the URI for that,
> but it turned out to be hideously long.)
>
>
> Arjun
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2000 15:39:56 UTC