forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Letting through raw HTML
Date Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:38:13 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote:
> Hi,
> Sometimes there is a HTML feature that you really need, that doc-v11
> doesn't have.  Perhaps it's nested tables, or <p> inside <dt>, or a bit
> of Javascript, or an applet, or a right-aligned image.. etc etc.
> So I'd like to introduce behaviour where:
> content/xdocs/*.html
> is treated as well-formed XML (hence in xdocs), and just has the menu and
> tabs added.
> Then we would have 3 different ways of handling HTML, from least invasive
> to most:
> .../content/*.html         - Copied across unmodified
> .../content/xdocs/*.html   - Copied across, menu/tabs added
> .../content/xdocs/*.ihtml  - Converted to doc-v11
> Does this sound decent?

To be fair, I think it sucks. It's a big fat hole in our SOC.

That said, I also think that keeping a documentDTD11 that's 
-almostbutnotquite- HTML sucks even more, and takes away lots of 
flexibility. We're trying to push an elephant (html, docbook, whatever) 
through a narrow hole (document11).

The solution IMHO would be to switch to XHTML. It doesn't have sections? 
I had proposed to follow XHTML2 which has them, and has all HTML features.

So we would have:

  - WIKI
  - HTML

Then as an intermediate format

  - XHTML2 ?

Then as output

  - HTML
  - TEXT

Finally we would stop maintaining a DTD that was created to surpass HTML 
deficiencies, at a time when HTML is going forward faster.

See my previous post for a comparison of DocumentDTD and XHTML2WD to see 
the differences.

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

View raw message