- 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