- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:50:59 -0400
- To: "Edward Lass" <elass@goer.state.ny.us>, <www-html@w3.org>
At 10:58 AM -0400 8/30/06, Edward Lass wrote: > >>> "Peter Krantz" <peter.krantz@gmail.com> 8/30/2006 8:53:31 AM >>> >> Am I interpreting it correctly if I use it like this: >> >> <section role="legal:paragraph">... >> >> ...provided that the "legal" namespace has already been established >in >> the document. > >I think this specific example would be a misuse of the XHTML2 >Structural Module, since that same module's <p/> element already means >paragraph (and "XHTML2's paragraphs represent the conceptual idea of a >paragraph, and so may contain lists, blockquotes, pre's and tables as >well as inline text").[1] > >In this case, the @role attribute could be applied to <p/> to, >literally, specify the role of this type of paragraph within the >document. Not so sure. If legal:paragraph has a content model that requires a header, and xhtml2:header's expect sections as their @about container, it could be more appropriate to derive legal:paragraph from xhtml2:section. And marking the role on a <section> or <p> would convey the same information to legal:namespace-aware processors; what would vary would be the handling in XHTML2 processors that were legal-unaware. In which case to process as a <section> might be the highest and best fit in pure XHTML2. [I blather. The problem with ontologies is that there are *so many* ways to skin a cat.] But if what the legal community calls a paragraph walks like an xhtml2:section and quacks like an xhtml2:section, it is best to use the most restrictive element type (from the more commodity vocabulary) that fits, before extending with @role qualification. Al > >- Ed. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#s_structuralmodule
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 15:51:09 UTC