forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivelin Ivanov" <ive...@apache.org>
Subject Re: XHTML2 I have read it and I like it... GO READ IT!
Date Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:48:41 GMT

Since I was one of the people who asked for DocBook,
I would chime in that a presentation independent subset of standard XHTML 2
is preferred to a proprietary language.

Regards,

Ivelin


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <nicolaken@apache.org>
To: <forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: XHTML2 I have read it and I like it... GO READ IT!


> Bruno Dumon wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 23:44, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >>XHTML2 working draft
> >>http://www.w3c.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20020805/Overview.html#toc
> >>
> >>
> >>Look at this XHTML2 snippet, and see if it looks familiar:
> >>
> >><body>
> >><h>This is a top level heading</h>
> >><p>....</p>
> >><section>
> >>     <p>....</p>
> >>     <h>This is a second-level heading</h>
> >>     <p>....</p>
> >>     <h>This is another second-level heading</h>
> >>     <p>....</p>
> >></section>
> >><section>
> >>     <p>....</p>
> >>     <h>This is another second-level heading</h>
> >>     <p>....</p>
> >>     <section>
> >>         <h>This is a third-level heading</h>
> >>         <p>....</p>
> >>     </section>
> >></section>
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't look entirely familiar to me. I see a section which can have two
> > titles, and the first title is not in the beginning of the section.
> > Strange. Usually, in the rendered version of a document, the title is
> > the only means to identify that a new section starts. And if there are
> > two titles for one section, how will they be numbered?
>
> It's a heading, not a title. It has a slightly different meaning.
> But I concede that there is a difference, though I don't really know if
> it's an issue or feature.
>
> >>There is also a del and an ins elements that can denote parts of the
> >>document that are deprecated or drafts
> >>http://www.w3c.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20020805/mod-edit.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Then the meta module
> >>(http://www.w3c.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20020805/mod-meta.html) for:
> >>
> >>  <head profile="http://www.acme.com/profiles/core">
> >>   <title>How to complete Memorandum cover sheets</title>
> >>   <meta name="author" content="John Doe"/>
> >>   <meta name="copyright" content="&copy; 1997 Acme Corp."/>
> >>   <meta name="keywords" content="corporate,guidelines,cataloging"/>
> >>   <meta name="date" content="1994-11-06T08:49:37+00:00"/>
> >>  </head>
> >>
> >>It will also have a schema, and has just one module for presentation
> >># 17. XHTML Presentation Module
> >>
> >>     * 17.1. The hr element
> >>     * 17.2. The sub element
> >>     * 17.3. The sup element
> >>
> >>With hr element deprecated.
> >>
> >>Now, I really like this. It's bascally a standard version of our
> >>document DTD.
> >
> >
> > I have the impression that there are a lot of differences:
> >
> > - documentv11 is still a *lot* simpler than xhtml2, meaning that it is:
> >    - simpler to learn
> >    - less work to write stylesheets
> >    - more restrictive, thus less ways to do dirty hacks
>
> It's not true. I never talked about implementing the *whole* spec.
> Also, since html is *extremely* more known, XHTML2 is simpler to learn.
> Think about link versus a... besides, in some ways documentDTD is
> already more difficult than xhtml (links).
>
> This is the concrete comparisons of the XHTML2 modules we should need
> (forms left out for now), please comment on the tags themselves:
>
>
>   '-----------------'---------------------------------------'
>   |  XHTML2 WD2     |       current document11 DTD          |
>   '-----------------'---------------------------------------'
>   XHTML  Structure Module
>
>      html              document
>      head              header
>      title             title
>      body              body
>
>   XHTML Text Module
>
>      abbr              * (requested by users via dictionary links)
>      acronym           * (requested by users via dictionary links)
>      address           * (requested by users)
>      blockquote        *
>      cite              *
>      br  (deprecated)  br
>      code              code
>      dfn               * (requested by users via dictionary links)
>      div               footer, legal  (requested by skinners)
>      em                em
>      h                 title
>      kbd               * (needed, currently we misuse "code" instead)
>      line              br
>      p                 p
>      |                 fixme   (with class attribute)
>      |                 note    (with class attribute)
>      |                 warning (with class attribute)
>      pre               source
>      quote             *
>      samp              * (needed, currently we misuse "source" instead)
>      section           section
>      span              *  (requested by skinners)
>      strong            strong
>      var               * (needed, currently we misuse "code" instead)
>
>    XHTML Hypertext Module
>
>      a                 link (already decided to reduce)
>      |                 jump (already decided to reduce)
>      |                 fork (already decided to reduce)
>      |                 anchor
>
>    XHTML List Module
>
>      dl                dl
>      dt                dt
>      dd                dd
>      nl                * (basically makes multilinks possible, very cool)
>      name              * (part of nl spec)
>      ol                ol
>      ul                ul
>      li                li
>
>    XHTML Linking Module
>
>      link element      book.xml
>
>      Metainformation Module
>
>       meta             abstract (never used)
>       |                authors
>       |                person
>       |                subtitle (never used)
>       |                type     (never used)
>       |                version
>       |                notice   (never used)
>
>     XHTML Object Module
>
>       object           img
>       |                icon   (never used)
>       |                figure (never used)
>
>   XHTML Presentation Module
>
>       hr               *
>       sub              sub
>       sup              sup
>
>    XHTML Tables Module
>
>      caption           caption
>      table             table
>      tbody             *
>      td                td
>      th                th
>      thead             * (needed, currently misusing caption)
>      tfoot             * (needed, currently misusing other tags)
>      tr                tr
>
>
>
> > - documentv11 is more device-independent
>
> I disagree. Tell me which above tags are device-dependent.
>
> >(think of html tags for
> > scripts, objects, forms, css, image maps, ...).
>
> We don't have to use all modules, and in fact we wouldn't.
>
> - Scripts we keep out.
> - Css is in the skin.
> - image-maps, we should support them in the future, but they can keep
> out for now
> - objects, it's images and SVG, which we *do* support
> - forms is something we miss that we need. Look at the simple fact that
> we needed them for a mail form and couldn't do it OOTB.
>
> > - documentv11 is in our hands, so it can be tailored towards our needs.
>
> XHTML is extensible, with span and div tags, but usually a class
> attribute suffices.
> Anyway, we can add our tags if it's *so* important, but ATM it's really
> not needed.
>
> > - xhtml2 is not here yet, there's only a very rough first draft, there's
> > not even a schema or DTD for it.
>
> That's not a problem, what we should do is just stay near near the
> draft, so that we can conform more easily when it becomes a recomendation.
>
> >>Please, please, please read it, since I really want to switch Forrest to
it.
> >>It has sections, it removed presentation markup, it's gonna be standard,
> >
> > Presentation markup was already deprecated in HTML 4 (= 1998), so that's
> > not that new.
>
> But now it's removed, it's *very* different.
>
> >>what do you want more?
> >
> >
> > I think it would be best for forrest to become documenttype-independent.
> > Thus it should be possible to define documenttype-specific pipelines.
> > (which of course raises the question of how to identify the type of a
> > document, but that's another matter).
>
> Sorry, but I strongly dissent.
> That's *Cocoon*, not Forrest.
>
> > In the end, the goal of XML is to be able to define application-specific
> > vocabularies. Different projects or people will always come up with
> > different requirements. And even in one project, multiple document types
> > are usefull, e.g. for cocoon it could be usefull to have a document type
> > for documenting sitemap components.
> >
> > And it will also become easier to migrate to forrest.
> >
> > The primary goal for forrest is to be used for the xml.apache.org
> > documentation, so the primary DTD should be one tailord towards
> > documenting software (but could be html-alike, like it is today).
>
> We have documented software for years with this html-like document10
> DTD, I don't see why suddenly we need more tags.
> It's months that Forrest is here, and guess what, no software tags.
>
> Besides, Forrest is used for intranets too, so documenting software is
> not our goal.
>
> That is the goal of Alexandria, which I'm reviving and that will output
> to the Forrest DTD, so that Forrest can integrate it with the site.
>
> SOC
>
> >>It will also give big pubblicity to Forrest, because it will be one of
> >>the first implementations of a XHTML2 system!
> >>
> >
> > Programmers shouldn't listen to the marketing guys :-)
>
> I'm talking about our users, our community, not marketing guys.
> Our users have already expressed concern because we don't use DocBook,
> but were a bit more happy when they say that document11 looked like html.
> Since it's *so near* our DTD, why not conform?
>
> Think that we will have XHTML2 editors!
> *This* is a major help for our users.
>
> >>When Steven comes back from vacation I wanna give a vote on this,
> >>because it's really COOL:-D
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Mime
View raw message