Steven Noels wrote on 07/09/2002 05:30:37 PM: > wrote: > > > Was there a reason? Since XHTML is designed to be reused this > > way.......? Or is it that noone knew much about modularisation? > > no - can you learn us? ;-) I looked into it recently for alternate docs for Maven. > seriously: we wanted our DTDs to be simple and only slightly differing > from the older xdoc DTDs - the only serious other option was DocBook > which was considered to be too compex for simple project website editing > needs That I can understand. > given the state of formal XML grammars in other similar projects, I > think we went as far as possible without scaring people off with > unnecessary complexity - given the fact that we are actually considering > _validation_ as part of the publishing pipeline > > AAMOF, there is quite some modularization used already if you look > closely, but no official XHTML modules > > I'm not saying we won't adopt XHTML fragments at some point in the > future, e.g. for Forms and the like; it just wouldn't make much sense > going for full XHTML right now The idea of XHTML modularisation is that you can define new elements to be either added to the grammar or replace the top leve elements like . You then create a DTD driver to include the modules of XHTML you would like to use in your grammar, reusing the XHTML DTD modules. > HTH, I think so, but I wasn't sure if you were serious or not... > > -- > Steven Noels > Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center > > -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: Developers: