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

Re: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:07:30 -0400
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2d3emkrj1.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Robert Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> "Where HTML goes to great lengths to defined how an agent must recover
> from markup errors, XML is unforgiving in the face of markup errors".

That language has been softened per Anne's suggestion.

> It does not appear that XSD1.1 has a data-type containing the string
> “exception”. I believe that we should suggest to the group that is
> developing XSD1.1 that they create one and define it in such a way
> that it is compatible with HTML5 (See below). In the case of HTML5 and
> the XML vocabulary that is based upon XSD1.1, the goal should be
> harmonization.

Validation is way too late in the process. The problem XML faces is at
parse time.

> “However, as all of the use cases appear to have plausible solutions
> today, solutions that do not appear amenable to significant
> improvement, it appears that there is little that can be done beyond
> documenting these circumstances.”
> The first part of the sentence, “However, as all of the use cases
> appear to have plausible solutions today” implies that all of the
> problems have been solved. It is followed by a phrase that there are
> still: “solutions that do not appear amenable to significant
> improvement”.
> Does the all need to be changed to some or what? Do you mean: However,
> these solutions do not appear amenable to significant improvement. It
> appears that there is little that can be done beyond documenting these
> circumstances.

I meant that we articulated solutions for the use cases and within the
constraints outlined, it doesn't look like we could do a lot better.

> “we use the term “DOM” (Document Object Model) throughout as a general
> term for any of these possible representations.” Abbreviations should
> be spelled out.


> “Resolution HTML5 doesn't have an extensibility story that admits the
> possibility of content in arbitrary namespaces.”
> This is correct and is also the heart of the problem. A reasonable
> solution is to leave HTML5 alone; and instead, to define XHTML5 to be
> extensible. HTML5 then would be left to do general purpose including
> entertainment web pages and XHTML5 would be reserved for interfacing
> with XML and high integrity applications. Since the browser is a
> program, it is not written in either HTML or XML. However, its
> capabilities should be able to be met by the programming language used
> for its implementation. Obviously, every effort should be made to
> maximize the harmonization of HTML5 and XHTML5 and much of the code
> employed to parse and render the two languages can be common.

Do you think there's any possibility of achieving consensus for a
model that says HTML5 and XHTML5 are that radically different in
design and philosophy?

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:08:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:28 UTC