W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)]

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:19:28 +0200
To: <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200506200816843.SM04196@Inbox>

This means that xhtml pages served as text/html for IE (and application/xhtml+xml for others), for IE are inside first case (SGML-based formats).
Also "HTML Techniques" need also to be HTML/XHTML (or "Markup Techniques"), due that inside there are also example of "correct use" of <applet> and <embed> elements? And, also, there is suggested to use target attribute for open new windows instead of script: but "target"  is not allowed in XHTML 1.0 Strict (and also in HTML 4.01 Strict)...

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Christophe Strobbe"<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
    Inviato: 20/06/05 13.14.30
    A: "WAI-GL"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed   Resolutions  Draft Updates)]
      
    Hi Joe,
    
    At 19:16 17/06/2005, Joe Clark wrote:
    
    >>It is true that SGML does not define well-formedness, but if you say that 
    >>a well-formed document is essentially "one that can unambiguously be 
    >>parsed to create a logical tree in memory" (Jon Bosak, at 
    >>http://www.isgmlug.org/n3-1/n3-1-18.htm), then you can apply this concept 
    >>also to SGML.
    >
    >OK, so let me understand this: The Working Group is contemplating issuing 
    >a vague and counterfactual guideline based on one person's blog posting,
    
    The new success criterion is not based on Jon Bosak's article; if you had 
    that impression, that is entirely my fault (i.e. the wording of my response 
    to Gez Lemon). I tried to identify criteria for well-formedness "after the 
    fact".
    
    We now have 2 SCs at GL 4.1 L 1: one for SGML-based formats and one for all 
    other formats. We may consider splitting the first one into two SCs: one 
    that requires well-formedness for XML-based formats and one that requires 
    something else for non-XML SGML-based formats, but we're still struggling 
    to define this "something else". If we want to stick to the terms of the 
    SGML standard, we could require that "Non-XML SGML-based delivery units are 
    formatted according to the SGML declaration of their specification or to 
    the Reference Concrete Syntax if no SGML declaration is defined." We might 
    then add a note saying that this does not require (type-)validity. The XML 
    specification does not define well-formedness by means of an SGML 
    declaration but in Extended Backus Naur Form; this is why I propose to 
    split the first rule instead of treating XML as a special case of SGML.
    An SGML declaration defines such things as the character set and the 
    characters that can be used for delimiters (e.g. <, >, </); it defines a 
    "concrete syntax". The Reference Concrete Syntax is a concrete syntax 
    defined in the SGML standard.
    (Note that SGML parsers are not required to detect or report errors.)
    
    Regards,
    
    Christophe Strobbe
    
    
    
    -- 
    Christophe Strobbe
    K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
    Document Architectures
    Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
    tel: +32 16 32 85 51
    http://www.docarch.be/ 
    
    
    
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 12:19:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC