Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bob DuCharme wrote: > Seairth Jacobs wrote: > > >The usefulness of any given subelement is due to the knowledge of its > >namespace, document type, and/or parent element. Without any of the > >three the subelement does not have a useful meaning. > > I can think of many specific questions, but I'll start with the general > ones: > > 1. Why subelement? Why not "The usefulness of any given element"? Since the root element has not parent element, I included only subelements. Also, it is often possible to determine context from the root element alone. > 2. The "and/or" confuses me. Are you saying that, for a (sub)element to have > some meaning, one or more of (namespace, document type, parent element) must > be known? That if only one is known, the element may have some usefulness? > (I'm not arguing this point, just looking for some clarification.) Yes, this is what I meant. > Now I'll argue: there are certain element type names used often enough in > enough contexts that their usefulness can be inferred without knowing either > their namespace, document type, or parent, e.g. xref and emph. (I would rule > out h1, <a href=""/>, and p as examples because we generally do assume a > particular doctype for them based on common usage.) So these types of elements have a sort of "globally implied" definition that is independent of a specific doctype? If the above statement were to be extended to include these "global" elements within a given domain, would the statement be complete? I gotta go think about this a bit... --- Seairth Jacobs seairth@s...
|
