W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:45:56 -0400
To: "W3C HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20070506021040.M44244@hicom.net>

Clarification of Objections:
   * Reasons Why HTML 4.01 Strict Should Remain
     the HTML WG's Foundation Document

Since the first deliverable listed in the HTML WG's Charter clearly 
states,

<q
cite="http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables">
* A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of 
  documents and applications on the World Wide Web. This will 
  be a complete specification, not a delta specification.
</q>

i still firmly believe, and have yet to be convinced otherwise, 
that the HTML WG's foundation document should be HTML 4.01.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

using the Strict DTD defined for that language:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html

taking into account the changes and errata for HTML 4.01:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/changes.html

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html4-updates/errata

as well as consideration of the "Notes on Forms" and "Future
Projects" sections of the "Notes" appendix:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.6.2

as well as the architectural document linked-to from the HTML 
activity's main page:

http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision

as well as taking into consideration the following, most of 
which come from the Markup activity's web space::

* XHTML 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1

* XHTML Basic: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic

* Modularization of XHTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization

* XHTML 1.1 (Module-based XHTML): http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11

* HTML Compatibility Guidelines: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines

* XML Events: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-events

* XHTML-Print: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-print
(Opinion: satisfies a lot of author complaints and is where residual 
presentation markup should be relegated)

* Document Object Model (DOM) Technical Recommendations:
http://www.w3.org/DOM/DOMTR

* EARL (Evaluation & Repair):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/

* HTTP in RDF:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20070323/

* XForms 1.0 (Second Edition):
http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/
(also: http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/sliceG.html#xforms-in-xhtml-00)

* XForms 1.1: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xforms11-20070222/

* XML Pointer Language (XPointer) 1.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr/

* XML Pointer Language (XPointer) 1.1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xptr

* XPointer Framework:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/

and any others the chairs deem fit and which match our internal 
dependencies, and, THEN, the HTML WG should treat each 
modification of the Technical Recommendation for HTML 4.01 -- by 
whomever and from whatever source -- as single proposals to add, 
change, modify, and/or deprecate any elements in the HTML 4.01 
Strict DTD in order to produce Canonical HTML.

gregory.
----------------------------------------------
Whether or not you write well, write bravely.
                                 -- Bill Stout
----------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
----------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 02:46:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT