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

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

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:14:39 +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: <11A2C786A2D08A4D9E64E213468F4C62492F495C@TK5EX14MBXC114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I believe that what you are suggesting is beyond the scope of this task force, or at least beyond the scope of what most TF participants are interested in doing.  I suggest you propose a Community Group to discuss how OMG IDL and XML might work better together. If you find a critical mass of people who are interested, you can explore the question together.  See http://www.w3.org/community/


From: public-html-xml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-xml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Leif
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:46 AM
To: 'Norman Walsh'
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: RE: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report


Norm et al.

Technically, I was not proposing any changes for HTML5. My proposals were for XHTML5, which I believe, as of yet, has neither been implemented nor described in any detail. As for prefixes, I believe that the RDFa and semantic web proponents will be the ones who argue for the addition of prefixes. Meanwhile, we have the Health and Human Services Health Information Technology group pushing XML based standards, as well as Health Level 7 (HL7) and many other governmental, scientific, engineering, and technical groups creating their standards in XML. The lack of interoperation between HTML5 and XML is significant and potentially an expensive management problem. I am proposing a diplomatic solution to make the necessary changes to XHTML5, which is supposed to be XML compatible.  I suggest the we ask OMG for input on interfacing IDL with XML. It is quite possible that they have done it.

Please See below:

Bob Leif

From the OMG web site:

How does this work in My programming language? (http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/omg_idl.htm#Language)



In order to integrate the heterogeneous computing environment that we've built up over the years, CORBA needs to work in just about every programming language. IDL is not a programming language - it's great for defining interfaces, but it doesn't have the constructs you'd need to write a program.



To do this, OMG has defined mappings from IDL to just about every major programming language: C, C++, Java, Smalltalk, COBOL, Ada, Lisp, PL/1, Python, Ruby and IDLscript have standard mappings.  Implementations of mappings to other languages are available.



A mapping assigns a language variable type to each IDL variable type, and a translation from IDL's operation format to the language's invocation of a member function or other operation invocation format. Mappings also specify memory usage conventions for client and server sides, and conventions that allow CORBA's infrastructure to perform services for the object implementation: A mapping to an OO language might, for example, assign names to the base classes for the implementation and specify how the implementation classes should derive from IDL-generated classes.



Language mappings are very precise: When you apply an OMG language mapping to an IDL file, you always get the same language constructs out. To our distributed programming environment, this provides portability in addition to predictability



-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com]<mailto:[mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:08 PM
To: rleif@rleif.com<mailto:rleif@rleif.com>
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org<mailto:public-html-xml@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report



"Robert Leif" <rleif@rleif.com<mailto:rleif@rleif.com>> writes:



> Norm et al.

>

> “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?”

>

> I do think that it is possible to achieve a consensus for a model.



You're proposal, as I understood it, was that the XHTML serialization of HTML5 would allow arbitrary namespaces and prefixes, like XML, while the non-XML serialization would not. If I've understood you incorrectly, please let me know. If not, I encourage you to shop that idea around the HTML community. I think you'll find it very difficult to garner any support at all. But do let me know.



                                        Be seeing you,

                                          norm



--

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com<mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com>> | Act from reason, and failure makes you

http://nwalsh.com/            | rethink and study harder. Act from

                              | faith, and failure makes you blame

                              | someone and push harder.
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 20:15:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 September 2011 20:15:08 GMT