- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:52:18 +0900
- To: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>, Ognyan Kulev <ogi@fmi.uni-sofia.bg>
- Cc: Stephen Deach <sdeach@adobe.com>, Addison Phillips <addison.phillips@quest.com>, www-international@w3.org, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
At 17:11 05/08/10, Tex Texin wrote:
>
>I prefer nesting of xml elements to reflect the semantic relationship of
>the elements.
Me too!
>That is not necessarily the same as the presentation relationships.
Not necessarily, but with extremely high probability. Can you provide
a reasonable counterexample?
>Also the relationship between runs is not always to embed (or pop) a
>level. Sometimes there will be sibling relationships, which to maintain
>presentation ordering will need some sequencing attributes.
Could you give an example? That would make it easier to immagine
what you are speaking about.
>(All in all,
>I think I prefer control codes for all of this. ;-) )
In more than 99%, to be very conservative, the bidi embeddings/overrides
correspond to logical document structure. Using control codes would
only create a mess. There remains the issue of attributes, but
a) control codes in attributes are well isolated and don't interfere
with markup
b) putting running text in attributes is a bad idea for many other reasons
Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 10:46:41 UTC