W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > July 2011

RE: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:13:33 +0000
To: "rleif@rleif.com" <rleif@rleif.com>, 'Norman Walsh' <ndw@nwalsh.com>
CC: "public-html-xml@w3.org" <public-html-xml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <11A2C786A2D08A4D9E64E213468F4C62491B4969@TK5EX14MBXC116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I'm unclear on what you want this task force to do with these suggestions.  Shouldn't they be directed to the HTML working group?

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-xml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-xml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Leif
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:59 PM
To: 'Norman Walsh'
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: RE: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011

      Norm and XML/HTML Task Force
      I believe that the extension of the use of RDFa prefixes in XHTML5 would help to solve the problem of XML in XHTML5. Firstly, I believe that a solution would be simpler in terms of software engineering and more importantly politics for XHTML5. The political aspect is that most of the users who would strongly object to changes to permit the use of XML in HTML5 would be users of HTML5. Users of XHTML5 have already signified that they want to keep a relationship to XML.
      
      Since support of RDFa prefixes is legal, but optional, in HTML5 (see below), we would only be asking for extension of this support.
      
      *** Decision of the Working Group ***
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0689.html)
      Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the "Clarify how
      prefixes work in RDFa, and that they're an optional feature." Change
      Proposal for ISSUE-120.  Of the Change Proposals before us, this one
      has drawn the weaker objections
      I believe that this statement refers to:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange 
      ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange
      
      I believe that Ada was either the first or one of the first programming languages to use a renames statement. A prefix is the equivalent of an Ada and the SPARK(1) subset of Ada renames. Both of these programming languages are used in mission critical applications, which have much tougher requirements than XHTML5. Therefore, any arguments against the safety of the use of prefixes would need considerable evidence. The concept of information hiding should apply to URLs. Long strings may be necessary for code traceability but they can clutter up code. This is why curies and latter prefixes were developed for RDFa.
      The great virtue of a prefix is that the HTML5 parser can be given specific information on how to handle the prefix and anything that follows it. This includes ignoring it and letting another tool be responsible for it. Thus, only a minimal change can be made to XHTML5, particularly if it supports RDFa prefixes. IDL should be able to provide support for the equivalent of 
      <xs:openContent mode="interleave">
                     <xs:any namespace="http://www.r.org"
      processContents="strict"/>
      </xs:openContent>
      I would suggest that the namespace be a prefix. This should result in the xhtml5 parser ignoring all content in elements starting with that prefix. This should limit the rest of the discussion to how to use XML schema derived elements in elements, such as xhtml5 forms?
      (1)
http://www.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/sparkdocs-docs/SPARK_LRM
.htm
      
      -----Original Message-----
   From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com] 
   Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:10 AM
   To: rleif@rleif.com
   Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
   Subject: Re: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011
      
      "Robert Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
      > In any event, an HTML5 schema could serve as a useful test-bed for 
      > experimentation and prototyping.
      
      I suppose it could, except that HTML5 markup isn't XML and isn't going to become XML, so it's probably only useful for content creation. Using XML for content creation and management is likely to be valuable and widespread.
      
                                              Be seeing you,
                                                norm
      
      --
      Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Reality is what refuses to go away when
      http://nwalsh.com/            | I stop believing in it.--Philip K.
Dick
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 21:14:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 July 2011 21:14:11 GMT