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

[xhtml2] replace pseudocompatible elements with "XHTML 2.0 for HTML authors"

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <benjaminhawkeslewis@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:50:43 +0100
Message-Id: <pan.2006.09.25.10.50.40.648184@hotmail.com>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org

Hi,

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

Extracted from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/0030.html

May I please have a tracking of this comment.

About draft generally, but especially http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/mod-image.html#s_imagemodule
      
Given XHTML 2.0 will not actually be backwards compatible, is there any
evidence that including unnecessary elements like <img> will "ease the
transition to XHTML2" rather than hinder it by making XHTML 2.0 more
complicated?

There is a role for a document explaining how existing (X)HTML
techniques map to XHTML 2.0 techniques, along the lines of "XForms for
HTML authors" [*]. Such a document could explain that whereas in HTML
you might use <IMG> to mark up images, in XHTML 2.0 you would always use
<object>.

It would be worth working on such a document alongside the spec itself
(much as the accessibility WG drafts techniques at the same time as
drafting guidelines). This should help ensure that no useful (X)HTML
features are lost in the transition to XHTML 2.0.

But in general XHTML 2.0 *must* make sense to its author-base on its own
terms; it should *not* rely on legacy HTML elements to make itself
comprehensible.

[*] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2003/xforms-for-html-authors.html

-- 
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 10:50:49 GMT

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