W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Feedback on XHTML 2.0 WD (20030131) (PR#6308)

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:27:12 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20030407.172712.71088302.mimasa@w3.org>
To: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org, voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com

Thank you very much for your feedback.  Response to a couple of points:

Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com wrote:

> 3.2 User Agent conformance
> I'd not refer to them but at least copy them if no change is required.

User Agent conformance was one of the major topics at the joint meeting
with the WAI User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group last
month.  The current section is like a placeholder, it should be
elaborated in future drafts.

> 6. Attribute Collections
> I'm sceptical about not having a style attribute.

It's been under discussion.

> 6.5 Hypertext Attribute Collection
> I really like the idea having such an attribute collection.
> I like the idea making hyperlinks even more central to HTML.
> I just wonder why it's "href" instead of "xlink:href".

As you may know, it has been under discussion and as noted in
the status section, those issues are being worked independent of
the evolution of this specification.  For ongoing discussion, see:


> 7.3 The title element
> I want to suggest allowing Inline content in title.

It has been suggested by others as well, e.g. a thread between the WAI
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and the I18N group.


Due to a huge list of issues the HTML WG has to address, this issue
hasn't been formally addressed yet, but I personally don't see strong
objection against such a change.

> 8. XHTML Text module
> Splitting into an inline and a block module?
> I'd really appreciate this. There always has been some confusion at user agent 
> vendors wether rarely used elements like q or address are block or inline per 
> default (despite the fact that the W3C's recommendations are really 
> reasonably clear about that).
> Splitting would really clearify this.

The WG has basically agreed to split the module, but is seeking for
better names than "inline" and "block", as those are frequently
misunderstood as presentational difference rather than structural
difference.  Any suggestion for better names would be welcome.

> 8.9 headings
> I'd even not include h1-h6, not just deprecate them. Remove them. With section 
> and h, they're not required anymore.

The WG discussed this issue but has not reached consensus to remove
then yet.

> 8.12 The l element
> But I suggest replacing "sinle line of text" by "single line of text" ;-)

This error has been reported earlier and has been fixed in the editor's
draft.  It will be reflected in the next draft.


> 8.15 The quote element
> Why has q been renamed to quote?
> Not that it really matters, just asking.

Back to 2001, it was decided to deprecate 'q' and introduce 'quote', but
at that time it has not been clearly decided whether 'q' and 'quote'
belong to the same namespace or not, and we thought it would be better
to use a different name as those elements have slightly different semantics.
Since the WG decided to use a different namespace for XHTML2, now that
'q' and 'quote' belong to different namespaces, and personally I don't
have strong opinion about its naming.

> 9. XHTML Hypertext Module
> Hmm. I'd drop that, since a and span don't differ. And I'd rename span to s 
> then.

The WG hasn't formally addressed this issue yet, but some people argued
against it, e.g. Tim Bray said on www-tag:

    [ after advocating to keep <img/> ]
  - On a similar track, I hope there's no risk of losing <a href="">. Once 
    again, it's a nice idiom for an incredibly common case and is widely 
    recognized and miplemented. Yes, it's logically equivalent to <span 
    href="">, but still.

  XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry)
  From: Tim Bray (tbray@textuality.com)
  Date: Fri, Oct 04 2002

> 13. XHTML Metainformation Module
> I do not agree with omitting the scheme attribute, I liked it.

It was suggested by others as well, and the WG agreed to put it back.
However it was also noted that the HTML4's definition was vague, and
we should make it clearer, probably in coordination with the ongoing
effort on RDF in XHTML issue.  Your 'scheme' element proposal may be
considered as part of various proposals.

> F. References
> I'd like to see XHTML 2.0 defining everything and not relying on good old 
> HTML4 as normative reference.
> HTML 4 should be referred to as an informative reference only.

Agreed, and I believe the WG is working toward that goal.

Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 04:27:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:48 UTC