W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2006

[whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

From: FROIDURE Nicolas <froidure_nicolas@yahoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:43:12 +0100
Message-ID: <459650D0.9090803@yahoo.fr>


Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote :
> HTML5 won't have a DTD. None of the other languages have a DTD since
> they aren't SGML. XHTML is moving towards schemas of various sorts,
> which aren't DTDs either.
>   
I didn't knew that ! What system will replace it ?
> Also, while I recognize you're the developer of a WYSIWIG extension, I
> don't think WYSIWIG is a workable conceptual model for HTML authoring
> since (X)HTML is all about what you mean, not what you see. But I do
> hope the inclusion of textarea format expectations will lead to the
> development of editors more suited for (X)HTML authoring.
>   
I say WYSIWYG cause nobody knows what a WYSIWYM editor is (especially 
Google users...) but the concept of this editor is a valid XHTML 1.0 
Strict source and a semantic edition of the content (Semantic with the 
toolbar (XHTML), stylistic with the sidebar (CSS)). But if you're 
interested about that, everything is explain on the website.

> Why would you need a plugin for <code/> ?
>   
For highlighting code even if it is a "personal" or "private" language. 
And the advantage will be that while the browsers will work for the 
support of common languages, some independent developers will be able to 
create a plug in. A Firefox extension, for example, could be quickly 
developped and the code tag with it's new attributes will be quickly 
effective.
> I don't follow this. What's wrong with:
>
> em { font-style: italic; }
> em em { font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; }
>
> As opposed to:
>
> em[degree=1] { font-style: italic }
> em[degree=2] { font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; }
>   
I used bad words to tell you what i mean. In CSS, you'll define a word 
emphasis like that : 0.1 em 0.2 em etc..., so, a degree attribute will 
be in the same "logic". It can be wrong, but for browser, maybe too a 
more simple implementation.
> I see no contradiction between expending effort on both drafts.
>   
OK, thank you for those precisions. Happy New year !

Nicolas FROIDURE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061230/3a12dedf/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 30 December 2006 03:43:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:31 UTC