Jon Knight:
| On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, John Kunze wrote:
| > So I propose that we leave the term "subelement" alone for now, reserving
| > it for possible later use in referring to generalized content data. Instead
| > of subelement, I propose using the term "qualifier", as in the User Guide.
|
| I'm easy on this one (though I must admit that I prefer sub-element
| still); if there's a general virtual head nodding on this mailing list in
| the next couple of days I'll change our sub-element listing document to be
| a qualifier listing document.
Emphatically agree with John Kunze. DC's emphasis on semantics aside from
syntax is a great virtue, and "subelement" reeks of SGML. "Qualifier"
is nicely neutral among means of qualifying.
Still, some exploration of requirements for DC qualifiers might be in order
sometime. How rich a syntax must be required to support DC? Are
qualifiers on qualifiers contemplated? (in SGML terms, are those
"subelements" elements or attributes?)
Regards,
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. [log in to unmask]
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
