Subject: Re: "Roots" of confusion introduced at W3C (shortish) From: AndrewWatt2000@xxxxxxx Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:45:19 EDT |
I would like to ask a short and simple question to which, at present, there may be no short and simple answer. I hope someone from W3C will contribute an answer. The background to the question is explained in earlier posts in the thread and in earlier threads. When writing about XML and its family of technologies today is it possible to use a single, unambiguous term for each of the following two concepts - 1. what in the XPath Recommendation is represented as the "root node" (also referred to as the "document root") and 2. what the XML 1.0 Recommendation calls the "document element"? Given that increasingly there is use of multiple XML technologies surely it is important to unambiguously be able to refer to these "things". <grin> ... I can't call them "entities" since in XML 1.0 that means something else entirely. :) What I want to avoid is having to repeatedly write things like, "Let's take a closer look at the blah blah (which is called the doo da in XPath and the widget in DOM and the whatsit in SVG)". May I propose that the following be the standard terms: For item 1. - "document root" For item 2. - "element root" I believe we do need some clear, unambigous, non-clumsy way to communicate these ideas across XML technologies. I don't believe that way currently exists. Andrew Watt XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: "Roots" of confusion introduced, Pawson, David | Thread | Re: "Roots" of confusion introduced, Michael Fuller |
Re: "Roots" of confusion introduced, AndrewWatt2000 | Date | carriage return in XML ---> <br /> , michael schwalm / ex |
Month |