W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Defined sets, accept sets, and <banana> elements

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:51:29 -0700
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E41330C@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Ah, I see what you mean now.  But I think there's 3 flavours then:
1) delete element and it's children
2) delete element and replace with it's children
3) do nothing to element and recurse into it's children for
"processing", processing being context dependent.

In the TAG finding in Must Ignore Unknowns
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-strategies#iddiv479876736), I
was calling #1 and #2 the Ignore All and Ignore Container variants.
Our discussions have identified that variant #3 needs to be

But don't review that doc, it's undergoing big rewrites from our f2f and
pending outstanding comments from Noah.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:34 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Defined sets, accept sets, and <banana> elements
> David Orchard scripsit:
> > I'm not sure what "replace by content" means in this 
> context. If it's 
> > an XML element that isn't thrown away from the infoset, is 
> it really 
> > replaced?
> IOW, the element is removed from the infoset and replaced by 
> its child elements, character content, enclosed PIs and comments, etc.
> -- 
> John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
> The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we 
> stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of 
> inexplicability.
> Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more 
> land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our 
> possessions.
>         --Thomas Henry Huxley
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 04:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:16 UTC