forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@wkwyw.net>
Subject Re: XHTML2 I have read it and I like it... GO READ IT!
Date Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:02:16 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> This is the concrete comparisons of the XHTML2 modules we should need 
> (forms left out for now), please comment on the tags themselves:
> 

OK...

> 
>  '-----------------'---------------------------------------'
>  |  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

If it's deprecated what is the recomended alternative? Is it suitable 
for our needs?

>     code              code
>     dfn               * (requested by users via dictionary links)
>     div               footer, legal  (requested by skinners)
>     em                em
>     h                 title

This is not an equivalence. We can only have one title and it is clear 
where that title should go and how it is used. A heading is a different 
thing altogether, As Bruno Dumon has already pointed out, this causes 
problems with numbering (or does it - I confess to not having read the 
recomendation)

>     kbd               * (needed, currently we misuse "code" instead)
>     line              br

Is this what is replacing the deprecated br element? If so what other 
implications does this have?

>     p                 p
>     |                 fixme   (with class attribute)
>     |                 note    (with class attribute)
>     |                 warning (with class attribute)

So how do I do this:

<fixme author="rdg">Stop reading email so late on a Sunday night</fixme>

I would be tempted to add an optinal author attribute to all elements 
as, for my purposes this would be useful, but now I am talking about 
changing the XHTML DTD and I can;t do that. At least with Document V1.1 
I have a voice if I ever feel the need toargue the case.


>     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

How does this affect the libre effort?

> 
>     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)

Most of the items you say are never used are used here. I am not 
precious about how the info gets in there though, as long as I don't 
lose any expressiveness. For example, can I still but inline markup in 
an abstract if it is in the XHTML meta format? Can I still indicate that 
a figure is a figure if I use object (important so that I can label them 
accordingly and generate a table of figures)?

> 
>  XHTML Presentation Module
> 
>      hr               *
>      sub              sub
>      sup              sup

I don't agree this should be in the DTD. This is presentation stuff and 
should be in the CSS.


>   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.

Seems fine to me.

<snip/>

> 
>> - 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.
> 

And document v1.1 isn;t stable yet either so we aren't losing anything 
by adopting this approach - or are we?

>>> 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.

Still some bits slipped through. I've not read the whole spec but in 
your list of tags above there is a section that you have titled "XHTML 
Presentation Module", surely that is presentation!

>>> 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.

I agree, and if you really want to you can use Forrest with different 
DTD's anyway, of course this means a maintenance overhead but that's the 
choice you take.

> 
>> 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

 From the forrest home page "Our first target is to create a consistent 
xml.apache.org website, with a uniform, lightweight and easy to navigate 
layout and structure. Each project will be responsible for maintaining 
its own documentation and website", indeed Forrest is for Intranets not 
*just* documentation.

> 
>>> 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.

Now if these editors are configurable so that they only allow the tags 
we allow then this is a *big* argument for adopting XHTML2, at least in 
my mind.

So how does this "adopting modules" work? Do we have to adopt every tag 
in a module, or can we select on an element by element basis?

Ross

> 
>>> When Steven comes back from vacation I wanna give a vote on this, 
>>> because it's really COOL:-D
>>
> 



Mime
View raw message