W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Workflow - on the wiki

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:11:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEncD4egtFqhqJLJgn8nvvXfgPXhf_vyjj1d23pHPLH_5X1mQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Cc: public-ppl@w3.org
On 17 March 2012 02:05, Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> I've been musing on this, it's certainly interesting. On the other hand
> there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff on the wish list. :-) It
> strikes me that validation and the font usage standardization are at
> least as important.

No comment on priorities!

> On the validation front, I suspect RenderX has done more work on this
> than anyone. Refresh my memory: how useful were their validation
> products? I guess what I'm saying is, why start from scratch?

Hard sums Arved. AFAIK the guy from RenderX who did the Java
validator isn't there any more?
   We can ask, but I'm not hopeful of RenderX open sourcing their validator.
Clearly Antenna House have one too.

I've spent time looking at grammar based validation and it just doesn't work.
My solution would be to simplify the spec of (e.g. color) which is wide open
to a simpler choice mechanism.
However, that goes against the (not yet accepted) ideas of merging
CSS and XSL-FO, at some (undefined) point.

I'd do something like
color : specA | specB | specC
i.e. disallow the mixing of the way in which color is specified.

One point. Tony recorded the strength of feeling in Prague for a validator.

Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2012 07:11:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:57:24 UTC