forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
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 21:44:14 GMT
Steven Noels wrote:
> 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!

>> 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).

Sure, I intended that we can use the same tags, not necessarily the same 
In this way it would be much more easy to implement future editors 
directly in the browsers, since the tags are basically the same.

This is intended to give hints over the cleanup of the DTD we have to do 
for the link tags.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message