Print

Print


On Thu, 2006-09-03 at 18:52 +0000, Michael Beddow wrote:
> > Originally, for example, abbr/expan were paired thusly:
> > <abbr expan="um">&umacr;</abbr> (which is fine) and <expan
> > abbr="&umacr;">um</expan> (which is not, since attribute values are not
> > parsed).
> 
> Not so, I fear.  There is no reason why references (whether they are entity
> references or numeric ones) shouldn't be *used* in attribute values. The
> only restriction is that they must not *expand to* anything (such as markup)
> which is illegal in an attribute value. So provided there was an external or
> internal subset which assigned a legal expansion to &umacr; then <expan>
> abbr="&umacr;">um</expan> would itself be perfectly legal.

Sorry. This is of course correct. In my haste I couldn't think of a
better example, but it is tagging that we nbeed to avoid.


> 
> What may be the cause of the confusion here is that references can never be
> used in the names of elements or attributes in XML. But that doesn't arise
> with Janus tags. The other potential source of confusion is the problem
> which occurred with such examples if the CER  expanded either to something
> that is not a legal Unicode codepoint, or to something (such as a <c> or
> [TADAA!!] a brand new P5 <g> which entails markup. Now that is something
> which Janus-ing can't cope with but <choice> can, since element content can
> contain any markup the content model allows at that point.
> 
> Michael Beddow
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Acting Chair and Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project
<http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/>
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada

Vox: +1 (403) 329-2378/-2377
Fax: +1 (403) 382-7191