On 05/02/16 16:17, Syd Bauman wrote:
Lou --
Has this been dealt with, yet?
Not to my knowledge.
My instinct is that we need a general purpose system, because I might want to express equivalences in DocBook or NLM, not HTML.
This is a comment on the spec for <equiv>, right? Do you have a suggestion as to how I'm supposed to know that <equiv name="foo"/> means this element is equivalent to docbook:foo , or html:foo or what?
As for <outputRendition>, I guess the same is true. Why shouldn't I be allowed to express my output in DSSSL or FO or Waterloo Script? Because if you do we need to know which it is, and it's not clear where you'd specify that. Certainly not at the level of individual <outputRendition>s, we hope.
But two thoughts on outputRendition:
* The @versionDate on most everything is set to May of 2009.
I blame James for careless cut and paste. Will fix.
* I'm thinking that maybe "first-letter" should be "first-character". After all, it might be a numeral, a dingbat, or an arithmetic symbol instead.
Yes, changed accordingly.
Oh, and here's another one.
The <equiv> element is used quite a lot in the current document, apparently to provide an HTML element which behaves more or less the same as some model behaviour. For example
<valItem ident="link"> <desc versionDate="2015-08-21" xml:lang="en">create hyperlink</desc> <equiv name="a"/> <paramList> <paramSpec ident="content"/> <paramSpec ident="uri"> <desc versionDate="2015-08-21" xml:lang="en">link url</desc> </paramSpec> </paramList> </valItem>
(Note incidentally, that I took it on myself to give the second parameter a different name from the behaviour to which it is attached -- both were formerly known as "link", which I found just too confusing)
My question is: how on earth do I know that "a" is the name of an HTML element rather than (say) the indefinite article ? It certainly isn't defined as such in the TEI spec for <equiv> which says this attribute names "the underlying concept of which the parent is a representation" It makes me feel rather uncomfortable to be special casing this usage without explanation of any sort.
In much the same way, although the draft doesn't say it explicitly anywhere, am I right in thinking that the value of <outputRendition> is *by definition* a piece of CSS, and can never be anything else?