Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
Don Park wrote: > > I agree with you entirely. What we disgree on whether the spec should > be broken up into two for sake of expediency. The three line spec > in question simply assigns a namespace for HTML and settles the > case-sensitivity issue. To what end? With no specification for how to mix HTML into other namespaces there will be no interoperability. Without interoperability what's the point of a spec? > We can use that three line spec now to move > forward while the grammar spec is being worked on. Move forward how? People have been mixing HTML elements into other doctypes for at least five years now. We've achieved little economy of scale in doing that because recognizing a paragraph with some proprietary junk mixed in, in the middle of a proprietary document type is not that useful. That's why I don't understand Tim and David's excitement about the "power" of mixing HTML into things. Mixing HTML into things is not rocket science. Doing sophisticated things in a generic way, with generic software, with mixed in HTML IS rocket science. But it requires a real spec for mixable HTML, not a paragraph. > Until the grammar > spec is finished, we have only common sense to guide us when designing > HTMLish XML documents. The same common sense we've had for many years. The same HTMLish non-HTML documents we've had for many years. What does a namespace change? It just allows us to pretend we've got interoperability when we do not. > More like peer-directed violence. All the boys learn to say > "Girls! Yuck!" from watching other boys. I don't think there will be > much vendor-directed violence nor abuse of common sense now when there > are active groups like XML-DEV waiting to jump in and scream, "You made > a Boo-Boo!" <g> Who's to say its a boo boo if there's no spec? Titles in the middle of a document might make perfect sense in meta-X-HTML. Tables in meta-X-HTML might have <title>s. That's just the point: we can't apply sociological pressure without a constitution to refer to. We can hardly say: "That's different than HTML" because the whole point of the namespace is to allow HTML element types to be used in not-HTML. Let me ask you another question about your two-stage plan. So in version 1 we deploy hundred of HTML-ish documents using the same case conventions (!) and namespace but totally open content models. Then later we deploy the grammar. What do we do about the installed base of grammar non-conformant data? Doesn't this sound familiar??? Paul Prescod xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format