W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2000

Re: XHTML Invalidity / WML2 / New XHTML 1.1 Attribute

From: Sean Palmer <sean_b_palmer@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20000812193746.13745.qmail@web3502.mail.yahoo.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-html@w3.org
I'll start with the end of Mr. Connolly's message:-
> I don't think we need anything new; 
> XML, namespaces, RDF, and
> XML Schemas should do nicely.
That's one of the most potent pieces of writng
anywhere on the Web in my opinion.
It raises more questions than it answers, though.

1) Isn't this leading to over complication of he
Internet? Surely the move towards valid XML is hard
enough for most amateurs, but this might put a lot of
people off. Soon it may become very hard to write
decent valid Web documents. Is all of this really
needed?
2) How do you suggest that we employ RDF into XHTML
1.0 and still have it validate as a document? What is
the point of having RDF/Schemas to add one attribute?
3) Choose for me: XHTML validity, or neat programming!
I know that is a bit of a hyperbole,but it kind of
gets my point across.

However, your statemeant is memorable because of what
it means: we should utilise current languages before
moving on to anything new. The only problem I see is
that nothing gels together properly. You have to in
effect, choose which language you want to use.
Otherwise, it just won't validate.
I'm very glad that you produced the comment schema for
us, and I'm glad it has a permanent W3C URI. I will be
using it in a lot of my future documents, because I
author quite a lot, and, for reasons discussed, it is
worth me including a comment attribute (even if it in
the form of util:comment). 
> > or should I copy it 
> > locally? 
> You may... lemme make that explicit...
Sorry, that's my odd way of asking permission! I
didn't mean to be impertinent.

Maye in time it will become accepted, and even
included in most XHTML documents (pff...that's a bit
much to hope for). Spread the word everybody!

Why does the validator not recognize line-breaks? I'll
post that on the validaot list...
> You'll have to do more work
> if you want to use namespaces
> with DTDs. The XHTML modularization
> spec supposedly tells you how to
> do it, but it's pretty tedious. I
> recommend you don't bother
> with DTDs, if you're interested
> in mixing vocabularies.
I never thought I'd see a W3C member advise somebody
not to use DTD's. Even in this special case!

I did do a little more owrk...
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/xhtmlct.html
and http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/xhtmlct2.html
But neither document validates (and I don't expect
them to.)
I really would like to make a document work with a DTD
and a Schema. I looked at the modularization document
again (I have done many times before), and it just
increased my belief that the technical specialists are
losing their "comon touch". (present company
excepted). I think somebody should write a laymens
guide to the modularisation of XHTML, just what it
involves, how to do it, and, most importantly, why
bother. Maybe I'll have to do it myself, but I'd
rather see it issued as a note at W3C.?XHTML 1.1 is
going to be absolutely incredible, but everybody is
going to have a lot to learn to get the most out of
it.
Soon, we are going to have documents incorporating:-
XHTML .1, CSS, XML, XSLT, Schemas, RDF, MathML (etc.),
and who knows what? We need somebody to guide the way.

In reference to your <div style="display:
none"></div>, I think that the backwards comatability
issues this raises are too great. Do you have any
other ideas.

BTW; one problm with schemas. Soon there is going to
be a lot of Schemas floating about on the Web. I think
that the W3C should issue some kind of standard for
authors, so that they may submit them to some group
(?????) especially devoted to this problem. At the
moment, the list of Sche,mas is small(ish), but just
you wait!!! I'm glad that our comment one has a W3C
URI...I think Schemas are a kind of DTD for the common
man (or woman), and that they need some type of proper
regulation.

Anyway, back to comment(s). I might write a small
script to extrat util:comment attributes from
documents. Is anyone interested???

I think all of this raises another important point: is
XHTML 1.0 really XML. I think this little exercise
proves that it isn't. It also proves it isn't HTML. -
this all supports the text/xhtml MIME type suggestion.

We are not going to see a comment attribute appear in
the XHTML 1.1 specification. That is very clear.
However, if I can't get that, I am at least going to
try to make Schemas and RDF more accessible to
programmers.

At the moment, I think that the util:comment is the
best way forward.I challenge people to think up a
better idea, and prove it works.

My last pouint (for today) is IF XHTML is XML, and
Schemas are valid, then surely we should be able to
display some nice little logo on our pages. I think
I'll copy the Valid XTML logo and cross out the HT.
This probably infringes so much Copyright it's unreal,
but I'm sure everyone is up for a laugh.
Have a look at http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/logo.gif

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail  Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Received on Saturday, 12 August 2000 15:38:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT