Re: Categorized element list

["Eve L. Maler" <elm@east.sun.com>]

I'm really psyched to hear about the work done at last week's meeting.  I 
did notice that there are "semantic" groupings such as informal objects 
next to "formatting" groupings such as verbatim; I bet most of the verbatim 
elements would more usefully go into a semantic grouping.

You could use this test: "Among which elements would I want to choose when 
faced with a piece of information that needs marking up?"  E.g., when 
trying to insert a code example into a document, you might decide you want 
example, informalexample, programlisting, screen, or even screenshot or 
synopsis!  We might not want to mix formal and informal objects into the 
same class because we want to restrict where titled things can appear, but 
this exercise can be handy (and it's better to make fine class distinctions 
than gross ones because you can add a bunch of classes to any one mixture).

You'll need to ensure eventually that elements don't appear in more than 
one group.  It gets hard to avoid content model ambiguity when the same 
element appears in multiple class entities.

         Eve

At 10:29 AM 3/3/00 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Ok, between ORD and BDL I redrafted the categorized list. I think
>this makes a fairly good starting point for our reparameterization
>efforts.
>
>Mostly I grouped by inline/block/function.
>
>Comments, please.

--
Eve Maler            Sun Microsystems
elm @ east.sun.com    +1 781 442 3190