[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Re: DocBook Annotations
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 16:46 -0800, John L. Clark wrote: > > I am uncomfortable primarily because insofar as a subtree is defined by > its root name, attributes, and content, when a child of that root is > given semantics which describe the whole subtree, in effect that > description also applies to the child node (which is doing the > describing in the first place). I don't think that's what > we want in this case. For alt, the alt content is sibling to the item for which the alternative is provided, as per Norms examples? > > While this may not be XML canon, I generally think of child nodes as > "composing" the subtree rooted at their collective parent. But as I > imagine the semantics of the alt and annotation elements, they do not > seem to help "compose" this subtree so much as "describe" it. Thus, I > would really like to see such annotations "outside" the subtree. Until Jeni brings lmnl to fruition, I can't see that being realised. > > It seems to me that annotations participate in a relationship with the > subtree that they annotate. Relationships are usually modeled as > tuples, and I'd like to do the same here. I went through a number of > designs where I attempted to model the tuples explicitly, using a common > parent, but it always ended up too verbose and too far removed from the > flow of information. Downside of the 'simple' nature of the SGML model on which most of this is based? > > What I would like to suggest, therefore, is a different > application-level semantic than I have typically seen before. I would > like to specify that annotations modify not their parent, but their > previous sibling. > > which simply strikes me as odd (the annotation of the phrase is "part > of" the phrase?), one would have: > > <para>Modern browsers display acronym expansions and link titles as > "<phrase>tool tips</phrase><annotation> > <title>Tool Tips</title> To me that looks odd. > Further, I think that there should be an option to allow annotations to > pick their targets using the IDREF mechanism that you would expect, > should the author want to place them elsewhere. I think that's where footnotes come in? To meet that expectation? regards DaveP
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]