forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clay Leeds <>
Subject Re: convert to document-v20.dtd
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:35:15 GMT
On Nov 7, 2004, at 6:26 PM, Rick Tessner wrote:
> 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 helps, but it makes me wonder... What is the purpose of 
document-v20.dtd, if all content is going to be converted back to 
doc-v13 compliant anyway.

Web Maestro Clay
Clay Leeds - <>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - <>
PGP Public Key: <>

View raw message