W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Some thoughts on an extensible hypertext markup language

From: Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 20:42:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3EC6D6DF.5050702@awiebe.com>
To: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>, www-html@w3.org
I suppose a minimal language of XHTML would be good for the purposes you 
pointed out.
The XHTML Minimal someone emailed seems too minimal. Web pages written 
in that would be as good a useless. You might as well call it THTML for 
Text Hypertext Markup Language.
It might be better to create a new language taken from XHTML 2 for 
mobile phones, PDA's, and whatever else there is and named accordingly. 
Such as a new language called PML for Portable Markup Language that 
would be made for portable devices.

John Lewis wrote:

>Arthur wrote on Friday, May 16, 2003 at 6:21:47 PM:
>
>  
>
>>What use would there be in a minimal version of XHTML?
>>    
>>
>
>On powerful desktop systems? Not a great deal. On the other hand,
>minimal versions of languages are well suited to devices that aren't
>capable of a great deal, or UAs that don't want to support more than
>the minimum. Consider XHTML Basic <http://w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic>.
>
>The abstract says
><http://w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219/#abstract>:
>
>    The XHTML Basic document type includes the minimal set of modules
>    required to be an XHTML host language document type, and in
>    addition it includes images, forms, basic tables, and object
>    support. It is designed for Web clients that do not support the
>    full set of XHTML features; for example, Web clients such as
>    mobile phones, PDAs, pagers, and settop boxes. The document type
>    is rich enough for content authoring.
>
>And as Toby said:
>
>  
>
>>Min-XHTML would be easy to implement by user agents as there is no
>>styling, no scripting, no embedding and very few elements. It would
>>be accessible because there is very little you can do to make a
>>min-XHTML document inaccessible!
>>    
>>
>
>It's an idea, anyway. I'm not sure if Toby is aware of XHTML Basic,
>which is similar to his proposal at a glance; although images and
>external (but not internal) style sheets are allowed, among other
>things.
>
>Apparently "XHTML Minimal" would at present need to contain at least
>four XHTML modules to be a conformant XHTML host language
><http://w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_document_type>:
>structure (body, head, html, title), text (abbr, acronym, address,
>blockquote, br, cite, code, dfn, div, em, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, kbd,
>p, pre, q, samp, span, strong, var), hypertext (a), and list (dl, dt,
>dd, ol, ul, li).
>
>XHTML Basic also contains these modules: basic forms (form, input,
>label, select, option, textarea), basic tables (caption, table, td,
>th, tr), image (img), object (object, param), metainformation (meta),
>link (link), and base (base).
>
>XHTML 2 Basic will be interesting, assuming it exists at some point in
>the future.
>
>  
>
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2003 20:42:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT