- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:56:01 -0000
- To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
I started working on the bidi best practices today. These are written in XML-Spec, and converted to HTML for publication. Although I have long been a fan of XML, I began wondering whether it was worthwhile to work in this way for our technical notes. Working on the HTML directly would probably make it easier for some people to contribute as editors - they could use DreamWeaver or other HTML tools. And the output would still be XML if we use valid XHTML 1.0. One thing we would lose is the constraints that a good XML editor can apply - eg. forcing you to use certain elements in certain locations, and prohibiting the use of other elements in other locations. This not only creates consistency and predictability which can help things like transformations, eg. to XSL-FO, but can help the author with a validating editor understand what's needed and where when developing stuff. On the other hand, it's a pain to have to build the HTML each time you want to check or upload it. It's also a bigger pain if you want to change the way things are done, since you have to change the DTD and/or XSLT. (This is a bigger issue now we have to go back to the CharMod docs that use an older version of the DTD and XSLT than recent docs - we will need to do some markup archeology just to get started on the editing, and ought to do some significant renovation if we are to make life easier for future revisions of those documents.) What do people think? Can we discuss during the telecon this week? Cheers, RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/blog/ http://rishida.net/
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 18:52:38 UTC