Hi Sebastian,
On 11-05-02 09:08 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 2 May 2011, at 16:27, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>>> I wonder whether<head> should be trimmed back to macro.phraseSeq ?
>>
>> Oooer. Birnbaum Doctrine, surely?
>>
>
> well, yes, it might have to be arsy-versy, and make<trailer> looser, but they
> should be the same, agreed?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I've never thought of them as the same sort
of thing -- and I think a table caption is a third different sort of
thing -- but I agree that if <head> is to be used for a table caption
when it's at the top of the table, and <trailer> when it's at the
bottom, then indeed they should have the same content model. But I don't
think we should be restricting the content model of <head>, now that
there are millions of <head>s in the wild. I'd be more in favour of
loosening up <trailer>, which presumably shouldn't break any
backwards-compatibility, than tightening up <head>.
> Birnbaum isn't unbreakable....
But you need a really good reason to break it, and this doesn't seem
like much of one to me.
Cheers,
Martin
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Head of Information and Support Group, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])
|
