forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject XHTML2 as forrest internal
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:07:55 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote:
> >>For a very long time we have intending to move to a subset of XHTML
> >>2. But planning and doing are two different things. We need someone
> >>with a suitably strong need to solve the problems posed by XDoc to
> >> actually do it.
> >
> >Maybe, we should start to think to do it. Could somebody show the
> >steps to move from xdoc to xhtml? I will try to do my bit.
> If it were that simple we would have done it by now ;-)
> There have been a number of false starts on this. My own effort was 
> aborted because a significant number of people in the community 
> disagreed with my approach.

Wow. That is not my recollection. I thought that we had a
little try, confirmed that it would take a co-ordinated
approach, and left it for another day. I am talking about
the re-working of all sitemaps and stylesheets (including
plugins) to deal with XHTML2 internally, leaving everything
else (e.g. cocoon) as it already is.

Are you talking about something else, or do you recall
it differently?

> Gav made a start on an XHTML2 plugin (in whiteboard) but that also stalled.

IIRC, the initial "internal.xhtml2" and "input.xdoc" were
the result of Ross, Tim, and others around some of our
Friday IRC sessions. I thought that was a fantastic step forward.

I thought that it was just waiting for some group of people
to get itchy again.

> Status is discussed in 

> xhtml2+page:1+mid:ttv65i23quvrkzks+state:results
> Like any open source project our archives and issue tracker are our 
> memory and information pook. Look in JIRA for mentions of XHTML2, in 
> particular the following issue identifies the outline steps involved in 
> making this move and tracks activity to date (including links into the 
> mail arcives):

Yeah, and i recommend that all Forrest developers use
the for Firefox.
It is fantastic for a quick directed search of our mail archives,
and issue tracker, and svn commits, etc.


> You should also conduct a search of the archives to see if there is 
> anything missing from those issues (and please add anything you do find).
> By reading those (and possibly other) threads you will be able to throw 
> your own thoughts into the mix. Of course, we'd be happy to answer 
> questions that arise as a result of reading those threads.
> >>Why XHTML2? For a full answer see the mail archives but in short it
> >>is because it is modular and therefore allows us to strip out all
> >>the bits that we don't want. That is all the bits that make it
> >>useless as an intermediate language.
> >
> >As xhtml2 is still a working draft ... Why not move to xhtml1.1? Is
> >it not suitable for the required needs?
> No it is not suitable. XHTML1.1 is monolithic. Forrest has to use a 
> clean markup so that no style inforamtion is included in the source (or 
> intermediate format). We also need clearly structured documents that 
> prevent the user from doing something like:
> <h1>Heading type 1</h1>
> <h3>Heading type 3</h3>
> <h2> Heading type 2</h2>
> Failure to do this will result in unpredictable behaviour at the output 
> stage.
> XHTML2 is modular and allows us to select the markup we want to be legal 
> and also provides proper structuring of the source.
> For more see the archives, e.g. 
> Ross

View raw message