/ Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| In other words, I was thinking of extending the syntax of attributes
| so that we could write:
|
| <article
| <class>whitepaper</>
I've seen this suggested elsewhere recently. Specifically, that we could introduce
a new syntax using some prefix character for "attribute elements". That you'd make
<article class="whitepaper">
the same as
<article>
<_class>whitepaper</_class>
(If you selected "_" as the prefix character.)
While this would solve the problem from a purely pragmatic point of
view, I'm not sure I like what it does to the XML data model and the
complexity of applications.
| > <xh:p xmlns:xh="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>...</xh:p>
| >
| > If you did that, and gave xmlns: attributes special treatment so that
| > they didn't have to be declared (because they aren't really
| > attributes), you'd be in pretty good shape.
|
| But maybe there is a fundamental problem here, in that something that
| isn't really an attribute should not use attribute syntax...
Yeah, I would have preferred processing instructions to magic
attributes, but that's not the way the Namespaces Recommendation
turned out.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | When told of a man who had
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | acquired great wealth, a sage
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | replied, 'Has he also acquired the
| days in which to spend
| it?'--Solomon Ibn Gabirol
