forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: XHTML2 I have read it and I like it... GO READ IT!
Date Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:52:18 GMT
Bruno Dumon wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 23:44, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>XHTML2 working draft
>>Look at this XHTML2 snippet, and see if it looks familiar:
>><h>This is a top level heading</h>
>>     <p>....</p>
>>     <h>This is a second-level heading</h>
>>     <p>....</p>
>>     <h>This is another second-level heading</h>
>>     <p>....</p>
>>     <p>....</p>
>>     <h>This is another second-level heading</h>
>>     <p>....</p>
>>     <section>
>>         <h>This is a third-level heading</h>
>>         <p>....</p>
>>     </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 
>>Then the meta module 
>>( for:
>>  <head profile="">
>>   <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
> 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.


>>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         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message