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

Re: The X in HTML

From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:26:15 +0100
Message-ID: <3D58ECD7.9D3CA065@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Lachlan Cannon wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR [PC335/O-XP] wrote:
> > Many thanks, Jonny : so if I understand correctly
> > (after an admittedly brief reading), the underlying
> > idea is that an XHTML document shall always be statically
> > parseable for validity by reference to the DTD, whereas
> > with the "Xtensibility through macros" idea which I was
> > postulating, parsing for validity wouldn't be possible until
> > after all macros had been expanded (which isn't necessarily
> > a finite process).  I can certainly understand the desire
> > for static parsability, but on the other hand the overheads
> > of creating a custom DTD will, I suspect, make the
> > eXtensibility of XHTML little-used in practice.  Is there
> > really no case for a lightweight extensible language which
> > would allow the author to use tags of his or her own
> > choosing without the need for the formality of a DTD ?
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of the set-up
> being this way is so that
> a) markup tags are well thought out before being implemented -- you'd
> want to have your tags well thought out before modifying the dtd, to
> prevent having to do it again.
> b) everyone and their dog won't go out and make up random, and in a
> lot of cases pointless tags, and overlapping ones with different names.
> Why would you spend 5 hours creating a DTD integrating animalML with
> XHTML when someone else has done it? Re-use of DTDs saves bandwidth
> (assuming they're cached), effort, time, and it means that applications
> don't have to be developed for 1000s of different formats -- one of the
> points of XML is saving the costs of transferring data between different
> incompatible formats.
> A barrier to entry is nearly always a good thing, as long as it's not
> too big. By creating this barrier to entry, documents won't be littered
> with meaningless, or stupid tags (eg <fUnKyT3xT>, <myC00lstuFF>). People
> who are interested enough to learn how to work with are are more likely
> to consider the semantics of a document.
> Again, please correct me if I'm way off here.
> --
> Lach
> __________________________________________
> Web: http://illuminosity.net/
> E-mail: lach@illuminosity.net
> MSN: luminosity @ members.evolt.org
> __________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 07:29:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC