[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
Steven Pemberton writes: > > While I think [XHTML] modularization was an utter waste of time, it > > doesn't affect users working on documents. > > Then you missed who it was aimed at: us (the HTML WG) and other > language designers. Indeed it doesn't affect markup language users. Then I think it may illustrate the substantial difference between meta-activity and activities that produce direct results. From my perspective, the last three years of XHTML work have been about pencil-sharpening, an activity which may produce sharp tools but which do little to hold people's interest or grab their imagination. As much as I like XHTML 2.0, my greatest concern for the spec isn't HLink politics or anything to do with the features: I just wonder whether there's a large audience out there with any interest remaining in the subject. > We were chartered to produce several versions of XHTML. XML is > extensible at a very-fine-grained level (elements and attributes) and > we needed a coarser-grained approach. So we designed a sort of DTD > API (now also for Schemas) that allowed us to design modules so we > could plug them together to make a language. That ensures that > languages that use the same modules are interoperable across those > modules. It also means that errors only have to be fixed in one place > when they are discovered. > > We were able to build XHTML Basic and XHTML 1.1 from the same set of > modules, and modularisation has now been used for WAP 2, as well as > some other standards. This has so reduced our work that it certainly > hasn't been a waste of time for us! > > The relative ease which we have been able to create XHTML+Math+SVG has > also demonstrated the value of Modularisation. The Math working group > had already produced a module, and it was reasonably simple to produce > an SVG module. Then we just plugged them together. (The main problem > has been character entities, which alas are not namespaced). It's taken about two years to sort out modularization, and I suspect that it's fair to describe their achievements as a brilliant illustration of the limitations of both XML 1.0 DTDs and W3C XML Schema. That they work now sufficiently for your needs is good to hear, but I still wonder who if anyone out there is all that interested. For my part, I'm definitely not interested in XHTML validation. Other than pages I've written for my XHTML book, I don't use the DOCTYPE declaration on my XMLized HTML documents, though I do use @#X! lower-case now and (sometimes) the XHTML namespace. Validation seems to be a fetish that's ruled the project, not something productive in and of itself. (I suspect that my relatively simple documents would in fact be valid if tested, but have no reason to test.) I look forward to XHTML 2.0 marking a change from this pattern and hopefully giving a broader set of users some reason to be interested once again. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
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
|