Specializations can have semantics in addition to those of their base, but not
different from. So in this case I think imagemap and area both work as specializations of <div>. (But I still think moving them to the base vocabulary is a better solution.)
Chris
From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Magliery Tom <tom.magliery@justsystems.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:20 PM
To: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>
Cc: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [dita] Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap
> Then the other question is whether or not the specialization is semantically consistent with the base, which is a more subjective question. But in this case, <div> has no semantic beyond "container" so hard not to be semantically consistent
with it. Ditto for <area> specialized from <div>.
Graydon's earlier point is that specializations of div therefore should not (or even "must not"?) have a semantic beyond "container", but it's certainly true that the area element has semantics beyond "container". Are there other specializations
of div that we can look to as precedent?
[I sent this to Zoe yesterday but had intended to send to the main list]
<div> should be the best choice but would need to think it through:
<imagemap> allows <image> and <area>
<area> is currently a specialization of <figgroup>.
<figgroup> is essentially the semantic equivalent to <div> so it would make sense to also make <area> a specialization of <div>.
<div> allows all the elements from which the subelements of <area> are specialized, so that works.
One way to evaluate a specialization design is to generalize it back to the base types and verify that the result is still valid. If it is, then the specialization meets that requirement.
So using <div> for <imagemap> and <area> definitely passes that test.
Then the other question is whether or not the specialization is semantically consistent with the base, which is a more subjective question. But in this case, <div> has no semantic beyond "container" so hard not to be semantically consistent with it. Ditto for
<area> specialized from <div>.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
On 7/8/19, 8:30 PM, "Zoe Lawson" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of
zoelawson17@hotmail.com> wrote:
Originally, <imagemap> was a specialization of <fig>. This means you cannot use an <imagemap> directly inside of a <fig>, which makes it complicated to add a title to your image.
You can work around this by using a <div> inside of the <fig>, but that seems like an extra layer of complexity.
If we change the specialization base of <imagemap> from <fig> to something slightly more generic such as <div>, that may simplify the adding of a title (or other content) around an <imagemap> in a <fig>.
I would like some technical assistance determining which element makes the most sense to specialize from.
Thanks,
Zoà Lawson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
The content of this email and any attached files are intended for the recipient specified in this message only. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is strictly forbidden
to share any part of this message with any third party or rely on any of its contents, without the written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with deletion of the original message, any copies
and all attachments, so that Oberon Technologies can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
|