forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:18:18 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well)

It could just mean that everyone was busy during the few
days of the Proposal thread.

I do want to support your proposal, however i am still
getting my head around the ramifications.

> and in the past there have been contrasting opinions, ...

Those people do not seem to be around now. However the old
discussion may have some relevant stuff. Can anyone point
to the archives - i don't want to drag up any dispute,
just see if anything useful for the current situation.

> ...I reckon that lazy consensus 
> does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.

That is a sensible approach.

> The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and 
> xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
> Hence:
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml

Yes. Thanks for your description of cleaned html. That helped
me to understand the issues.

> 2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
>      and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
>      through the html output.

When you say "unrecognised tags" i gather that you mean that stuff
not explicitly dealt with by the stylesheets gets directly through
to the output. Those tags are still valid XHTML. Am i right?

>      This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
>      force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.

What do you mean "force to do RNG validation"? Is that not a goal?

Is multi-namespace support still possible down the track?
I mean to ensure that we are not cutting off future stuff.

> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml

Yes. There is no need when we have 1 and 2.

> Reference for html-xhtml:
> My vote: +1

View raw message