forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: [dtd] Wondering about the document v20a
Date Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:45:06 GMT
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:57:42AM -0700, Rick Tessner wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 11:31, Rick Tessner wrote:
> > It doesn't look all that different from the existing v12 (or v13 for
> > that matter) with the following exceptions for document-v20
> > 
> >       * <link> becomes <a>
> >       * Fixes nested <ol> / <ul> bug
> >       * addition of <meta>
> > 
> > And faq-v20 differences:
> > 
> >       * <part> becomes <faqsection>
> >       * @title becomes <title>
> > 
> > Would it be better to move to a v20 for all the DTDs or just back-port
> > these fairly minor changes to v13?
> > 
> > The name change of <link> to <a> makes me think v20a was an initial
> > to move towards xhtml.  Or am I way way off base there?
> > 
> > Either way, I'm up for making the required changes.
> Replying to my own post ... The back port of v20 to v13 would be a bad
> idea.
> The changes I submitted to jira for v13 simply add the class attribute
> to all the elements.  This means that any v12 documents are forward
> compatible with v13.  I suspect that the element name changes are the
> reason for the change to V2.0 from V1.x.

v2.0a ditched a couple of old linking elements (jump and fork), and so
could no longer be considered backwards-compatible, hence the jump from
1.x to 2.x.

> It may be that we have both a v13 and a v20 and the v20 is modified to
> include a class attribute on all elements.
> Personally, I have an immediate need for the class attribute and it
> would be much more expedient to use that on my existing V1.2 docs than
> to modify all my docs to confirm to V2.x.

v1.2 is a released, published DTD, and I think that once a DTD is
published, it shouldn't be tinkered with.  So utilizing any DTD
improvement is going to require changing the DOCTYPE declaration in
XML files...

Nothing wrong with further evolution of the v1.x line though.  Not sure I
see the point though.. isn't that hard to s/link/a/,  :)


> I'd be happy to do the work for V2.0 as well.  I'm guessing that since
> the V2.0 DTD appear in the catalogs that the existing V2.0 dtds are
> considered published and therefore would require any changes to be V2.1?
> -- 
> Rick Tessner <>

View raw message