W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2006

[xhtml2] Editorial/General

From: <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:27:03 -0000
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060817032708.229E74F1D9@homer.w3.org>

Hi,
This is a QA Review comment for "XHTML 2.0"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/
2006-07-26
8th WD

About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/


The XHTML 2.0 specification has a lot of content but sometimes too vague. It  needs often to be rewritten with clear statements. Some definitions are obscure or underdefined. There is no harmony in the layout of requirements which makes it difficult to parse and prone to misunderstanding.

It took me 5 days to review it (not in depth.) I had to struggle through different sections of the document to sometimes really understand some concepts and review some of my comments. I can consider that I am familiar with HTML having used it for the last 15 years, reviewed it and translated some specifications like HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, XHTML Basic, etc. 

I really see *possible* benefits for the Web through the flexibility of the language, but not as it is being defined right now. XHTML 2.0 in this shape is either too far from HTML 4.01 semantics or not far enough to make it worthwhile for developers to invest time and energy in developing things in their products.

It's not only about the browsers market, but a long food chain is involved that has to be considered.

	Browsers
	Search engines
	Semantics analyzer
	Parsers
	Authoring tools
	Validators, Checking tools, Helping tools
	XHTML libraries, CMS, etc.

And then people in their jobs. To move all this area forward, it needs a lot of care, and not only define the language, but also create the ecosystem for it at *every* level of the food chain.

See Mails
	- "Testable assertions"
	- "XHTML 2.0 Specification layout and structure"
	- "XHTML 2.0 Issues list"
	- "XHTML 2.0 Tutorial"
	
plus all other comments.

* Typos

There are a few typos in the document, put it through a spelling checker.

* HTML 3 in the introduction.
	"Linking: In HTML 3, only a elements could be the source and 
	target of hyperlinks. "

HTML 3 has never been published, maybe you want to say HTML 3.2

* XForms mungling
In TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/mod-attribute-collections.html

	"Attributes that designate provide a mechanism of 
	repeating table rows within a form."
	
The sentence doesn't make sense or at least is obscure.




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2006 03:27:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:55 GMT