W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 2000

XHTML11: Corrections to WD-xhtml11-20000105

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 03:58:44 +0900
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: voyager-issues@themacs.com
Message-Id: <20000114035844K.mimasa@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
The following is a list of corrections to WD-xhtml11-20000105.  Like
my previous comments on XHTMLMOD, the issues w.r.t. references are
already pointed out and not included in this list.  Also, some
problems on DTD driver are already pointed out, so I won't reiterate.

For your convenience, references are provided as URLs in the HTML
version as well as page numbers in the PDF version.  Some comments
may overlap with my previous comments on XHTMLMOD (e.g. comment on
copyright statement), but I'll keep them so that they won't be missed.

Most of them are just editorial corrections, but if necessary, these
issues may be split up in the issue tracking system.


Copyright statement (p. 1)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/

- I think the year(s) for the copyright statement should at least
  include "1999", like "1999-2000".
    
Status of this document (pp. 1-2)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/#status

- In the third paragraph: (p. 2)

    The Working Group anticipates asking the W3C Director to advance this
    document to Proposed Recommendation after the Working Group processes
    Last Call review comments and incorporates resolutions into the
    Guidelines.

  The last word should be "document", rather than "Guidelines".

- In the fifth paragraph, "Group" in the last sentence is unnecessary.
  Or, change "WG Group" to "Working Group".

1.1. Introduction (p. 5)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/introduction.html#s_intro

- In the second paragraph:

    With the introduction of the XHTML family of modules and document
    types, the W3C has helped move the Internet content-development
    community from the days of malformed, non-standard markup into the
    well formed, valid world of XML. In XHTML 1.0, this move was moderated
    by a goal of providing for easy migration of existing, HTML 4.0 (or
    earlier) based content to XHTML and XML.

  I'd rather prefer to say "HTML 4" rather than "HTML 4.0".  This
  applies to all occurrences of the term "HTML 4.0" throughout
  the document.  Or, where versioning is not important, just saying
  "HTML" may be sufficient.

2.1. Document Conformance (p. 7)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/conformance.html#doccont

- In the following paragraph:

    This version of XHTML provides a definition of strictly conforming
    XHTML documents, which are restricted to elements and attributes from
    the XHTML _1.1_ namespace.

  I'm not sure if "XHTML 1.1 namespace" is the right term.  We used
  to have a different namespace URI (namely, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11)
  for XHTML 1.1 from XHTML 1.0 (which was http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/*),
  but now that they share the same namespace URI.  Maybe we'd better
  just say "XHTML namespace" to avoid unnecessary confusion (at least
  until namespace versioning issue is resolved).

3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type (p. 9)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/doctype.html#s_doctype

- In the third paragraph:

    The XHTML 1.1 document type is made up of the following abstract
    modules: Structure, Basic Text, Hypertext, List, Applet, Presentation,
    Edit, BDO, Forms, Tables, Image, Image Map, Intrinsic Events,
    Metainformation, Scripting, Stylesheet, and Link as defined in
    [XHTMLMOD], and the Ruby Annotation module as defined in [RUBY].

  "Image Map" should be separated into "Client-side Image Map" and
  "Server-side Image Map", and "Base" module have to be listed.
  Maybe we'd better list "Param" module also, though, that's among
  the DTD support modules.

A. Changes from XHTML 1.0 (pp.11-14)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/changes.html#a_changes

- In the third paragraph, change "contant model" to "content model".

- As I have already commented, I think this table should list changes
  from XHTML 1.0 only.  The following comments assume this position.

- We'd better drop entries for unsupported elements, expect object
  (which was in XHTML 1.0 Strict but not in XHTML 1.1).

- The following elements should be marked as "No change":

    area, base, body, br, caption, div, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr,
    img, input, legend, li, link, ol, p, pre, script, td, th, tr, ul

  Obviously there's no change on most elements.  I'd rather prefer
  to remove entries for those unchanged elements.  That would make
  this table significantly simpler.

- Add "-style" to changes on "ALL".

- Remove "-accesskey", "-tabindex" and  "-target" from changes on
  "a" element.  accesskey and tabindex attributes are not removed
  from XHTML 1.1, and target is not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict and
  we don't have to list it.

- Mark changes to "applet" as "Added" or something appropriate.

- Remove "-align" and "-bgcolor" from changes on "table", and
  add "+datapagesize" (?)


Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2000 13:58:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:45 GMT