OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: Fieldmarks: Nesting?

Hi Patrick,

I guess there is a misunderstanding:

So we have fieldmark-start and fielmark-end similar to bookmark-start and bookmark-end. Only difference is that
fieldmark-end do not have a name and thus they are always properly nested.

The fieldmark [without-start/end] is just an abbreviation. E.g. both representations are equivalent:
<fieldmark-start/>Hello World<fieldmark-end/>    [That we way you would do it with bookmarks]
<fieldmark>Hello World</fieldmark> 
Since the second form is much more convenient for XML processors I thought it was a good idea to say that this form
SHOULD be preferably written.

However if you are doing a field marking like
<p>The following <fieldmark-start/>text is a fieldmark</p>
<p>spanning two paragraphs<fieldmark-end/>.</p>
There is no way using the second form.

Make sense?


Maybe its a good idea to add this abbreviated form for bookmarks too... Current the <bookmark> element only marks one
position and not a span. So there is no alternative to writen bookmark-start and bookmark-end.

>>> Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> 05/06/08 4:27 PM >>>

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 Durusau
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]