forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Noels <stev...@outerthought.org>
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 21:34:25 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> XHTML 2.0 proposal currently has <section> elements and navigation lists!
> Oh, and also href to every tag and xforms and removal of deprecated tags!
> 
> http://roller.anthonyeden.com/page/rsal;jsessionid=6F4D80D04D7DDD76281BC6D3826D7494 
> 
> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/08/06.html#changes_in_xhtml_20
> 
> Hey, why don't we follow this, it's *darn* close to DocumentDTD!
> 

(I'm not here ;-)

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.

Since we haven't come to any official release for the DTD yet (my fault, 
I know), hence we haven't gone through the burden of convincing people 
to use our DTD and upgrade their docs accordingly, I don't know whether 
we are ready to throw what we have overboard.

Personally, and not because I feel kind of responsible for doc-v11, I'd 
prefer to nurture them for a little while and see how they are adopted. 
Some people have been mailing the list and privately about their 
intention to use the Forrest DTDs - I don't want to alienate them (yet).

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org                      stevenn@apache.org


Mime
View raw message