Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <c5614b$u1$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <c4rlih$fc2$1@sea.gmane.org> <c4roo8$o5l$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <c53139$tr4$1@sea.gmane.org> <1081477093.18166.3868.camel@ighp>
	 <c5614b$u1$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1081575693.18167.6630.camel@ighp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 10 Apr 2004 15:41:34 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Collating the two mails from David.
> 
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > 
> ...
> >>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 don't have better pointers to give you than the ones you would find 
> yourself with searching "ihtml" "html" "ehtml" "fix" "VOTE".

If anyone is brave enough to wade into the old discussion
then here are some threads ...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=105759865520117
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=106301676617936

It seems that one of the main issues was that people would be
confused when some of their html tags are silently discarded.

> ...
> >>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?
> 
> Correct. Basically we will be enhancing the output by skinning, not by 
> filtering unrecognized tags (except style ones, as they don't follow the 
> SOC principle), as they are still valid for the output. Of course they 
> won't show in other outputs like PDF, but it's a reasonable limitation, 
> given the advantages.
> 
> >>     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?
> 
> Not a near-term goal for me. I mean that this solution does not force us 
> to do this change also now...
> 
> > Is multi-namespace support still possible down the track?
> > I mean to ensure that we are not cutting off future stuff.
> 
> ... but of course it does not block it later on. The good thing is that 
> in essence it's independent of the RNG change, thus less traumatic.
> 
> >>3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
> > 
> > Yes. There is no need when we have 1 and 2.
> > 
> >>Reference for html-xhtml:
> >>
> >>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
> 
>    ---8-<---8-<---8-<-- OTHER MAIL --8-<---8-<---8-<---8-<
> 
> David Crossley wrote:
>  > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>  >
>  >>Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > 
> > <snip/>
>  >
> >>> 1 & 3 we could do now. 2 should wait until the xhtml2 switch.
> >>> Right?
> >> 
> >> Well, in fact no :-)
>  >>
> >> We can do (2) right now, but use XHTML1.0. When we switch to
> >> XHTML2.0 as an intermediate format, it will be then trivial to add
> >> it to the DTDs under XHTML.
>  >
>  > Do you mean just switch the DOCTYPE declarations? And evolve the
>  > stylesheets too i suppose. We would still need to support the old
>  > XHTML1.0 and i gather that Sitemap matches that we have in place
>  > respond to the Public Identifier, so it is well handled.
> 
> Yes, we would be just adding a new stylesheet for the new DTD, just as 
> we do now for the xml extension.
> 
> > I do wonder if we might be painting ourselves into a corner by 
> > depending on the doctype declaration. That ties us to DTDs because 
> > the parser must resolve it.
> > 
> > Sorry, this is disrupting the Vote thread, but i feel that it might
> > be a key issue.
> 
> Hmmm... How does RELAXNG use the right schema? IIRC with the namespaces.

Yes.

I have been collecting references about this issue, but damn - no time
yet to properly investigate. Here are some ...
ANN: Namespace Routing Language
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200306/msg00599.html
http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html
http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=2120

> But XHTML comes with a DTD... IIUC we will in fact need to configure the 
> selector for the future RelaxNG, but in any case the concept remains.
> 
> >> Basically .xhtml will work exactly like xml works now. We could in
> >> fact use the current .xml extensions, but xhtml has it's own
> >> extension and media type, so I prefer to do as outlined above.
>  >
>  > I do not quite understand the plan for our "xdocs" format.
>  > Is that still the "intermediate format"? I was under the
>  > impression that our xdocs schema was going to evolve to become
>  > a subset of xhtml2. Are you suggesting that it will actually
>  > *be* the full xhtml2?
> 
> Actually this plan is indipendent from the XHTML2 thing. In this vote 
> thread the xdocs remain the intermediate format, and XHTML2 is inserted 
> just because it will use the same .xhtml extension, to show that this 
> proposal won't interfere with the future changes.

Okay.

I do not understand all the issues and haven't time now to
investigate. So +0 from me.

--David