forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Tessner <>
Subject Re: convert to document-v20.dtd
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:26:17 GMT
Dave Brondsema wrote:

> Maybe because v13 is still our intermediate format, so internally we 
> "downgrade" v20 sources to v13.  I don't know... parts of that idea seem 
> right, but it seems like we'd also lose some information if we downgrade 
> v20 to be a valid v13 document.

Hi all,

Yup, Dave is correct here.  When I added the class attribute to v12 to 
create v13 and also did the v20 at the same time, I was looking at 
making v20 the intermediate format.

That just seemed to touch soooo many different bits, it looked like the 
best way to address this was to create a transformation back to v1.x.

In addition, with the use of XHTML soon-to-be the intermediate format, 
it just seemed the best decision at the time to keep v1.x as the 
intermediate format.

It's actually cleaner in terms of information loss going from v20 to 
v1.x, believe it or not.  That's because, in going from v13 to v20, the 
changes were:

   1. Renamed <link>  to <a>.
   2. Removed <fork> and <jump> in favour of the <a> element. See
      demonstration using class attribute on links.

[ The above taken from ]

Conversion to v20 from v13 can result in loss of information since 
<fork> and <jump> were deprecated in v20.  It's simple in taking the <a>

element in v20 and converting it to <link>.

All in all, it appeared to be cleaner in the interim to use v13 rather 
than v20 as the intermediate.

Hope this helps. :)

IT Firefighting and Prevention

View raw message