forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin O'Neill" <>
Subject Re: [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of the XHTML 2.0 proposal?
Date Thu, 08 Aug 2002 22:20:01 GMT

> I took a *deep* look into XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (the modular thing) over the 
> past week, and it seemed quite difficult to me to import only portions 
> of it inside our existing doc-v11 DTD. I see XHTML2 is being build up 
> from the same modular stuff, so either we drop doc-v11 and move to 
> XHTML2, or we stick to doc-v11 for legacy purposes.

I recently had to do the same thing. My solution, switch from using DTDs for
specification and validation and instead use 
RelaxNG ( James Clark has
created xhtml 1.1 grammars They are
so easy to combine, for example xhtml basic looks like this:

<grammar ns=""

<include href="modules/datatypes.rng"/>
<include href="modules/attribs.rng"/>
<include href="modules/struct.rng"/>
<include href="modules/text.rng"/>
<include href="modules/hypertext.rng"/>
<include href="modules/list.rng"/>
<include href="modules/basic-form.rng"/>
<include href="modules/basic-table.rng"/>
<include href="modules/image.rng"/>
<include href="modules/param.rng"/>
<include href="modules/object.rng"/>
<include href="modules/meta.rng"/>
<include href="modules/link.rng"/>

<include href="modules/base.rng"/>


I've begun to switch more and more of my grammar relaxng it's one of those you use
it once and you never go back (a little like xslt really ;))


View raw message