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.
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
Mostly I grouped by inline/block/function.
Eve Maler Sun Microsystems
elm @ east.sun.com +1 781 442 3190