I do not see any current (or future) need for a Grammar Module: - The provided (xml:)lang attribute even offers a (IMO fully sufficient) language specification. - A Grammar Module would not prevent authors from publishing grammatically, semantically, or textually wrong content (and content will never get really or well validated... otherwise Babelfish and co. would have released a more than 50% working translation engine, I guess). - The site extent would get to complex (without any advantages, neither related to content, nor CSS, nor anything else). I rather tend to a (former mentioned) 'Minimal XHTML' than a bloated 'Maximal HTML' defining each word, better: each pixel on the screen. Regards, Jens Meiert. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com> > > It certainly makes as much sense for there to be an XHTML2 Grammar > > Module as there does an XHTML2 Computing Module, Indeed, we've already > > had several requested elements that would fit in such a module, one of > > which, nr, is still under consideration. > > > Whether or not there should be a Grammar Module (I'm ambivalent about the > idea), I can definitely see a use for a Grammer XML language. Perhaps a > xhtml-grammer profile could be created, similar to the xhtml-math-svg > profile, for those who need it? > > -- Jens Meiert Steubenstr. 28 D-26123 Oldenburg Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147 Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91 Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5 eMail <jens@meiert.com> Internet <http://meiert.com>Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 03:00:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:49:32 GMT