W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > April 2008

Re: XHTML MIME draft updated for review

From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:38:14 +0100
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF4EECE04.202C8B65-ON80257435.003A17B2-80257435.003A6F1F@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Shane, a few comments . . . 

Only looking at Appendix A. Compatibility Guidelines [1]

This appendix summarizes design guidelines for authors who wish their 
XHTML documents to render on both XHTML-aware and <span>modern HTML user 
agents</span>.
Rationale: Some <span>legacy user agents</span> . . .

items within span should be reconciled, "legacy" is often considered 
pejorative so lets stick to HTML user agent.

so for XHTML 1.1 it should start . . . 

  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
    <head>

A.2. Empty Elements

  as was the case with "A.10. Boolean Attributes", I would suggest that we 
enumerate the set of elements affected. 
  The list is not too long and is something like: base; meta; link; hr; 
br; basefont; param; img; area; input; isindex; col.

A.7. The lang and xml:lang Attributes

  says: DO use xml:lang
  implies to me: DO NOT use lang

A.8. Fragment Identifiers

  says: DO use the id attribute
  implies to me: DO NOT use the name attribute

A.9. Character Encoding

says: DO set the character encoding for a document via the charset 
parameter of the HTTP Content-Type header. 
sounds good.
says: When this is not possible, . . . 
hmmm. . . 

A.10. Boolean Attributes

  says: DO use the full form for boolean attributes
  implies to me: DO NOT use compact form for boolean attributes

  I think it would be useful to retain the enumerated set of attributes 
that are involved and described in the original text.

A.12. Using Ampersands in Attribute Values (and Elsewhere)

  (and Elsewhere) refers to . . . ?

A.13. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and XHTML

  and XHTML ?

  this section is too terse and definately needs sime supporting examples 
to illustrate good practice.

A.16. The Named Character Reference &apos;

  since we are specific about this I infer that it is the only such 
example.



Not mentioned. . . 

do we need to make any distinctions between serving XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 
1.1? My suspicion is that we do.

My earlier comments on the last draft [2] and [3] still largely apply.


[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtmlmime-20080423/#compatGuidelines
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0015.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0016.html
Regards, Roland
FBCS, CITP




Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> 
Sent by: w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org
23/04/2008 18:00

To
HTML WG <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
cc

Subject
XHTML MIME draft updated for review







As per my action item today, I have updated the XHTML MIME draft so we 
can discuss it at next week's call.  The document is at 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtmlmime-20080423/

Remember that this is very drafty - I look forward to lots of feedback.

Thanks!

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com










Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 10:39:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:48 GMT