[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:10:36 -0500

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3AF67.AFEF8C70"

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3AF67.AFEF8C70
Content-Type: text/plain

See below (most of the original message snipped, only Kal's comments
remain):

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Kal Ahmed [ <mailto:kal@techquila.com> mailto:kal@techquila.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:25 AM
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Subject: RE: [sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData

Jim, couldn't you use variant names for this ? A variant name with a
"display" parameter would have the <resourceData> element for containing the
display name and so (with this proposal) would allow for your additional
markup requirements.

As I said, I may simply be ignorant of the best way of doing things. I've
been using a certain well-known commerical TM engine, and until recently
I've been using their default browser. With that, it's hard to put
significant data for leading a display in anything except baseNameString.
Lately Ive been scripting my own pages for their engine but not using their
browser, but the TMs are still set up for how I was originally working. I'm
willing to be instructed in better ways of working. However, I'm still
inclined to see baseNameString as the primary place for putting visible
text.

I thought that the original proposal was for allowing XML elements from
other namespaces to appear *only* in resourceData elements - in which case
this issue does not arise.

In Montreal I think resourceData came up first, but I commented on my
(perceived) requirements for baseNameString, and I thought that was
accepted. But I'm open to persuasion

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3AF67.AFEF8C70
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>See below (most of the original 
message snipped, only Kal's comments remain): Jim -----Original 
Message----- From: Kal Ahmed [<A href="mailto:kal@techquila.com">mailto:kal@techquila.com</A>] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:25 AM To: 
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org Subject: RE: [sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in 
resourceData </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
 Jim, couldn't you use variant names for this ? A variant name 
 with a "display" parameter would have the &lt;resourceData&gt; element for 
 containing the display name and so (with this proposal) would allow for your 
 additional markup requirements.</BLOCKQUOTE>
As I said, I may simply be ignorant of the 
best way of doing things. I've been using a certain well-known commerical TM 
engine, and until recently I've been using their default browser.&nbsp;With 
that, it's hard to put significant data for leading a display&nbsp;in anything 
except baseNameString. Lately Ive been scripting my own pages for their engine 
but not using their browser, but the TMs are still set up for how I was 
originally working. I'm willing to be instructed in better ways of working. 
However, I'm still inclined to see baseNameString as the primary place for 
putting visible text. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
 I thought that the original proposal was for allowing XML elements from 
 other namespaces to appear *only* in resourceData elements - in which case 
 this issue does not arise. </BLOCKQUOTE>
In Montreal I think resourceData came up 
first, but I commented on my (perceived) requirements for baseNameString, and I 
thought that was accepted. But I'm open to 
persuasion</BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3AF67.AFEF8C70--

--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary--