2922 2006-02-23 08:49:38 +0000 The word "tag" is not appropriate 2006-07-24 09:46:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified ITS ITS tagset WorkingDraft All All CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 vdv fsasaki fsasaki oldest_to_newest 8400 0 vdv 2006-02-23 08:49:38 +0000 I was not aware of your work in this field before and I find that this is a very good and solid idea. The thing I don't like that much is its name! As a trainer and writer, I spend my time explaining that XML is about trees and not about tags, that tags are just syntactic sugar to mark the beginning and the end of elements and that reasoning in term of tags is one of the main cause for the most frequent errors. I am thus somewhat disapointed to see a XML vocabulary with the word "tag" in its name! Kind regards, Eric 8410 1 fsasaki 2006-02-23 13:43:26 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > I was not aware of your work in this field before and I find that this is a very > good and solid idea. > > The thing I don't like that much is its name! > > As a trainer and writer, I spend my time explaining that XML is about trees and > not about tags, that tags are just syntactic sugar to mark the beginning and the > end of elements and that reasoning in term of tags is one of the main cause for > the most frequent errors. > > I am thus somewhat disapointed to see a XML vocabulary with the word "tag" in > its name! > > Kind regards, > > Eric Thank you for the feedback (the positive and the other ;) ! It is quite important for the working group to produce something which is called a "tag set", since we have been chartered to do this, see http://www.w3.org/2004/11/i18n-recharter/its-charter . Of course the working draft encompasses much more than tags (and mostly attributes ...), but a) we don't want to spend our time to change the charter, but rather reach last call fast, working on technical issues, and b) for many users (e.g. content authors), having a set of fixed names for elements / attributes is enough; they will not use selection mechanisms at all. So: yes, you are right, and no, we can't change this. 8461 2 christian.lieske 2006-02-27 08:57:18 +0000 We discussed alternatives in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n- its/2005OctDec/0086 10663 3 fsasaki 2006-07-24 09:46:35 +0000 Closed, no further action necessary.