forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Stylebook transition
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:48:14 GMT

dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> 
> 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 07/09/2002 05:49:09 PM:
> 
>  > Steven Noels wrote:
>  > > dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
>  > >
>  > >> Was there a reason? Since XHTML is designed to be reused this
>  > >> way.......? Or is it that noone knew much about modularisation?
>  >
>  > An important thing is that we strive to use semantics for the tags, not
>  > presentation.
>  >
>  > XHTML uses both, so it's not good for us.


> I didn't say you should use all of XHTML. You can use pieces of the 
> XHTML DTD so that your project doesn't duplicate them. See 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/ for more detail.

I wasn't aware of this possibility, sincere thanks for pointing this 
out. :-)

>  > Given this, we are using XHTML tags where is makes sense, so that they
>  > are more familiar for the user.
 >
> In this case, the document11 DTD wouldn't need to redefine things like 
> tr, td, table, img etc. It could just include the relevant modules from 
> XHTML.

Very interesting, really very interesting.
I like the concept a lot; if we can put in semantical stuff and leave 
out the presentational tags, I'm in favor of it.

To our DTD experts, what do you think, is it a viable thing to do?

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message