W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: BOF meeting to discuss XHTML and spec-prod at the W3C working group event at the end of February?

From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:35:21 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010116115730.01d75360@abnaki.east.sun.com>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, danc@w3.org, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
I wish I could attend the event (do you mean February 28?), but 
unfortunately I can't make it.  I'd be happy to attend a telecon, though, 
as this topic is definitely of interest to me as the XMLspec maintainer.

When XMLspec was developed, it was probably the first truly conforming XML 
DTD in the world.  So partly it was an XML proof-of-concept, but some of 
its more generic structures are reminiscent of HTML.  It didn't use HTML as 
a base because it needed somewhat more structure in order to be more 
tractable for interesting processing, such as producing multiple outputs 
and adding lots of generated text.  XHTML wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's 
eye yet (or maybe it was -- someone had brought up the idea of an "HTxML" 
quite early).

I had lofty goals after the August meeting, but apparently W3C has not been 
able to free up resources specifically for spec-prod projects, and my time 
is more limited for XMLspec these days than I thought it would be.  (I was 
hoping to have produced a V3.0 by now.)  So we may need to take baby steps...

         Eve

At 11:44 AM 1/16/01 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Would people be interested in discussing specification production issues 
>at the W3C working group event [1]?   I propose a meeting during the BOF 
>lunch on Wednesday, 31 January 2001 [2]. Let me know if you're interested 
>and what you would like to discuss.
>
>My interest stems from using an XHTML source and XSLT to generate the 
>newest versions of WCAG 2.0 (based on the work of Charles McCathieNevile 
>and the source for ATAG).  Although I think the spec-prod dtd is cleaner, 
>due to constraints of the human editors I am working with, using XHTML 
>will make the process much easier.  There are others on the W3C team who 
>are interested in using XHTML and there was a suggestion that we discuss 
>the classes that we are using.  Perhaps we can create a standard set of 
>classes to use with XHTML if one prefers to use that instead of the 
>spec-prod dtd?
>
>However, I am not completely convinced that using classes and XHTML will 
>give me as much granularity and control as I would like. Therefore,  a 
>discussion with the folks who developed the spec-prod dtd would be 
>interesting. I would like to know if XHTML was considered. If it was, were 
>there things that you couldn't do with XHTML and classes that you could 
>with the spec-prod dtd. Or was XHTML not available at the time the 
>spec-prod dtd was created?
>
>Are there other issues to discuss?  Is there follow-up from the 15 August 
>meeting [3] that needs to happen?
>
>Be well,
>--wendy
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/02/allgroupoverview
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/02/Plenary/Agenda.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2000JulSep/0028.html

--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 12:33:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:11 GMT