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

Experience Report [3]: Modularization of XHTML

From: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:52:23 +0100
Message-ID: <008801c03b44$9cf523e0$9adc93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Dear HTML WG (et al.),
This is an implementation experience report in reply to the Modularization
of XHTML [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization] specification going to
Candidate Recommendation:
"[3] Host Language Criteria Issues - Issues that should be addressed
before PR".

Section 3.1 (3), XHTML Host Language Document Type Conformance Criteria
States:-

> "3. The DTD which defines the document type
> must include, at a minimum, the Structure,
> Hypertext, Basic Text, and List modules defined
> in this specification."

I do not feel that the List module is a required module in a (very) simple
XHTML Modularization based language.
Hypertext and Basic Text are clearly essential, but I can't see why a list
capabilities should be included in every single XHTML Modularization Host
Language.
The same goes for Integration Sets. (3.2.[3]).

How this relates to my experience [as this is an experience report]: A very
simple form of XHTML is useful because it could be used for small business
applications where the terminals being used are very underpowered (many
businesses use terminals are stunningly out-of-date). Also, this very simple
subset could be used for simple document markup, where nothing further than
hypertext is really required: i.e. to enrich plain text.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Received on Saturday, 21 October 2000 05:52:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:49 GMT