- From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:31:24 +0100
- To: Paul Mitchell <paul@paul-mitchell.me.uk>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Paul Mitchell wrote: >> It's important that we figure out exactly what these elements should >> contain (possibly XML?) and then choose the most appropriate names. > > The trouble is that there are hundreds of eqally appropriate names. > Sorry to get biblical on you, but one always finds the answers to > seemingly impossible problems in the bible. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#NT-Name > > XML, being a UNICODE protocol, allows element names to be in any human > language. For any element name to have a truly "generic" meaning, it > should have transliterative synonyms in the *same namespace* for > non-English users at least, and literal synonyms for all language > users. More people may speak English than any other language, but more > people speak all other languages than speak any one, and English isn't > a single language anyway, so a universal XML naming scheme must > accomodate that, otherwise it goes against the 6th "XML documents > should be human-legible and reasonably clear", 9th "XML documents > shall be easy to create" and 10th "Terseness in XML markup is of > minimal importance." commandments. I don't think "presentation" and "behavior" are any worse than "lang" or "base". The default XML elements, attributes, processing instructions, etc. are based on English (e.g. <?xml-stylesheet?>), and I see no problem keeping it that way. I say we find the best *English* name for the element types. Cheers, Daniel
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 20:31:04 UTC