W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

What kelvSYC thinks of XHTML 2.0

From: kelvSYC <kelvsyc@shaw.ca>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:29:02 -0600
To: W3 HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <B97C6B7E.2207%kelvsyc@shaw.ca>

Well, this is my first time here, and after reading a bit of the XHTML 2.0
spec (and a little bit of XFrames and a couple of other things, I have these
things to say:

First, making it not backwards compatible is good.  Now I don't have to
consider many factors when I write the following.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

KelvSYC's point #1. Why have a Legacy Module if it isn't meant to be
backwards compatible?

KelvSYC's point #2. <h1> to <h6> seems redundant to me.  We should kick them
out.  I think that some weird combination of <section> and <h> should do the
job for both structure and presentation (through CSS).

KelvSYC's point #3. The href attribute being global seems to be a sore spot
to me.  For one thing, browsers don't render the stuff in <head>.  What
would happen if you make <head href=""><!-- Head content here --></head>?

KelvSYC's point #4. The line that separates structure and presentation seems
to be very vague.  I know many will disagree when someone says that elements
such as <abbr>, <quote>, <dfn> seems to be "excess baggage", and that
something along the lines of CSS with <span class="SuchAndSuch"></span>
should be used.  I personally don't think of them that way (being a person
who likes to cut corners), but this definitive line should be cleared up.

KelvSYC's point #5. If <line> replaces <br/>, then <br/> should be kicked.
I can't see why you want both.

KelvSYC's point #6. It seems to me like the <a> element is going to be
kicked when XHTML2 becomes a Recommendation.  Instead of throwing the href
attribute in Core, how about you make another attribute collection full of
<a> element attributes, and on a basis of necessity, throw that in to each
element?

KelvSYC's point #7. I think that <ol> and <ul> should be put together.  If
it's up to CSS to generate numbering/bulleting, then having two elements
that are basically the same is "excess baggage".

KelvSYC's point #8. Why have a Presentation Module at all, seeing that it
isn't meant to be backwards compatible and that XHTML is structure-only?

KelvSYC's point #9. Someone might have mentioned it before, but in the
ssismap module, someone forgot to take out the row in the table that gives
the ssismap attributes to <input>.  Same deal with the target module and
<form>.

KelvSYC's point #10. Does XHTML 2.0 make the target module a bit redundant?
I think the target module should be kicked since target is already a core
attribute.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

KelvSYC's question #1. Will XPointer be an integral part of XHTML2 to
reference parts of the same document?

KelvSYC's question #2. Will someone please explain the difference between
<div> and <p>?

KelvSYC's question #3. I take it that <br/> is illegal in <line>?

KelvSYC's question #4. How would inline frames work?  Would it be as simple
as putting an XFrame document inside of an XHTML one?

KelvSYC's question #5. Is it possible to link to two pages at once (like one
in the current window and one in the new one)?

KelvSYC's question #6. It says that the defer attribute in <script> is not
defined.  What does it do?

KelvSYC's question #7. Would the equivalent of <noframes> in XFrames be
embedding non-XFrames stuff in an XFrames document (eg. XHTML)?

KelvSYC's question #8. What would happen if someone mixed-and-matched XHTML
2.0 modules with XHTML 1.1 modules?
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 21:37:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT