forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [dtd] Wondering about the document v20a
Date Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:47:18 GMT
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?

I'd prefer to move onwards...

>>The name change of <link> to <a> makes me think v20a was an initial push
>>to move towards xhtml.  Or am I way way off base there?

It's correct AFAIK.

>>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.
> 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.

...and others would like to have the 2.0 enhancements without having to 
actually change the docs, and others using 2.0a would like to have the 
class attribute...

> 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?

  public-id="-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V2.0a//EN"

IIUC a=alpha -> 2.0 would be the next one.

What about doing this for 2.0 from 2.0a:

       * add back <link>, so that both link tags can be used
       * check that the old ol/ul stuff still works

And faq-v20 differences:

       * put back <faqsection> alongside <part>
       * make @title usable again

This would make 2.0 be our last document-DTD format that is compatible 
with both the previous 2 alpha and the last 1.x format.

If this seems too messy, I'd be equally happy to just use 1.3 and start 
getting the real xhtml tags fron the real xhtml2 in subsequent releases.


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

View raw message