[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fieldmarks: Nesting?
Florian, A couple of questions before commenting on the fieldmark proposal: > Fieldmarks are very similar to bookmarks, except that they need to be > properly nested. This is achieved by the fact, that a > field:fieldmark-end does not have a “name” attribute, but instead > closes the last opened field:fieldmark-start element. The > field:fieldmark element is short form of field:fieldmark-start and > field:fieldmark-end. It SHOULD preferably be written instead of > start-/end marks. OK, on one hand you say that Fieldmarks should be properly nested and use the rule that is typical of XML, the first end element closes the nearest open element. But, then you say it should be written as an empty element, <fieldmark (lots of fieldmark attributes) /> instead of start/end marks. If the empty element form works, then nesting is not a requirement. Yes? If nesting is a requirement, is the requirement that one fieldmark has a relationship to another? If so, nesting is only one way to represent such a relationship and probably not the best one because the relationship is only implied. If you want to take action based on some relationship it is probably best to have it explicit. That allows you to have multiple relationships and not just whatever containment may imply. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]