[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] dita table model
At 22:43 2004-07-19 -0400, Michael Priestley wrote: >Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I jumped too soon on a non-issue. > >In last week's discussion, wasn't the thought that we should try to provide >whatever the widest possible tag set would be, as a base? There were several "thoughts" at last week's telcon that went beyond our previous conversations about table model. I didn't think any particular idea that came up last week necessarily trumped all our previous discussion on the topic. In particular, I would not vote for using the widest tag set as a base. For example, I see no reason to have both spanspec and namestart/end (which complicates the model and allows for self-conflicting markup) when spanspec's in legacy data can programatically be converted into namestart/end. A lot of effort went in to developing the OASIS Exchange model, mostly because the CALS model was ambiguous (sematically) and underspecified. I still favor standardizing on the Exchange model as a good base to use. paul > Admittedly this >puts more of a strain on the base transforms, but it would then allow the >widest possible range of variations through specialization. > >Michael Priestley
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]