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

My last call comments on XHTML Basic

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:33:57 +0900
Message-Id: <200003130733.QAA21832@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org

Here are some last call comments on XHTML Basic.

General direction

The spec is rather vague on who/how/why it has to be used.
Either it should clearly say 'this is it', or it may be
better to give up this effort. This shows up in various places:

in 'Status':
- 'this document will be used ... to find a common ground...':
  I hope it will BE the common ground, and I hope the spec
  can say so.

- 'does not imply endorsement by, or consensus of, either
  ... HTML WG ...': I assumed that consensus in a WG is
  necessary to go to last call.

in 1.2
- We believe XHTML Basic....
- we think is good
  -> no 'we' in a spec, please

section 4:
- 'host language' should be defined better
- The text should be more specific and definite.
- It is natural that XHTML is the host language: XHTML -> XHTML Basic?

Other comments

- Status: What does the WAP Forum membership have to do with this
  document? There are many other entities that have not endorsed
  this spec, it is impossible to list them all.

- 'full fledge computer' -> 'full fledged computer'
- 'various HTML subset' -> 'various HTML subsets'

- 'PDAs' -> Personal Digital Assistants

- host language, that include -> host language, which is able to include

- Is the style attribute supported?
- The argumentation could be clearer. What about:
  'Some devices do not support styling at all. For those that do, the
   variety of devices is too wide to achieve appropriate presentation
   with a single style attribute per element or a single, in-document
   stylesheet. Linked stylesheets are best able to deal with this situation.'

- emphasize, em,  -> emphasize (em),

- that in Basic Tables Module -> the Basic Tables Module

- Frames depend on screen interfare: 'on a screen interface'?
  'on a visual interface'?

- for example no pointing device -> for example the lack of a ...

I hope the HTML WG has already received this comment:
It seems highly inappropriate in a specification for the WWW to
make something (for the WWW) marginal as a public indentifier
relevant, while allowing the system identifier (URI) to be
modified. It also goes against the spirit of the XML spec,
where the system identifier is required, but the public
identifier is optional.

user agents supports -> user agents support

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, I18N Activity Lead, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org/People/D%C3%BCrst
Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 02:33:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:22 UTC