- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:07:21 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:59 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dan Connolly writes: > > > On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:13 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > [...] > >> So, would the following be more likely to attract consensus: > >> > >> Change the story in the draft to include a notion of 'constrained > >> elaboration', during which a specified set of namespaces act as > >> quotation signals. > > > > That's counter to my intuition, which is: any namespace might > > include quotation mechanisms, so unless you know otherwise, > > you have to assume every element quotes/controls its children. > > First, are we clear about what is meant by quotation? I didn't make > it clear in my original posting, I realise -- I meant, only, quotation > _with respect to elaboration_. Yes. > I'd be surprised if many languages > will want to do that, I might stipulate that it's rare; I don't see how that changes anything. > but, I guess, your intuition differs from mine, > and I'm certainly not claiming a uniquely priviliged insight here. > > Second, even supposing the worst case, in some sense, all this means > is that almost every application will start from the elaborated > infoset treating its _own_ namespace as a quoting signal. I think I lost you at "every application"; there's 1 main application we're trying to specify, no? i.e The Web. > Examples would help. . . Yes... hmm... I think one pressing case is the question of whether XInclude or XPath goes first. Murray Maloney gave a good example with disclaimers a while back... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Nov/0127.html I'm not sure how well that example fits... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 16:12:19 UTC