W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2004

xhtml modularization

From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:25:57 -0400
Message-ID: <B8CDFB11BB44D411B8E600508BDF076C1E96D467@USAHM010.amer.corp.eds.com>
To: www-html@w3.org


Looking at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml-modularization-20040218/Overview.html

my first response is:

Wow, this is simpler and more compatible than xhtml2.0 -- 
maybe it will actually get used.

The details raised a few questions, though.

(1)
There are several places where the draft ignored the 
problem of restricting grandchild elements.  For example, 
a <form> cannot contain another <form>, but it can contain 
block elements like <div>, which can then contain another 
<form>.  <object> and <iframe> are inline, but they can 
take anything as contents, so a <div> again opens it to 
anything.

On the other hand, lists cannot be contained directly 
within a paragraph (regardless of styling), and <br> is
still core (to allow breaks within a paragraph) so maybe 
the block/inline issue is still there, and the div escape 
is just a bug.

If this relaxation is OK for xhmtl1, it is probably also 
OK for xhtml2 -- and would solve some of the block/inline 
problems.

(2)
Several elements moved from the Core Text module to a 
Presentation (Text Extension) module.  Unfortunately, there
isn't any clarification on what the remaining elements mean.

While the difference between <b> and <i> is clearly 
presentational, it isn't clear that there is any difference  
between <em> and <strong>.

As best I can tell, <em>, <strong>, <b>, <i>, <tt>, 
<big>, <small>, <sup>, <sub> and even <span> all mean 
exactly the same thing:

	"I'm grouping this text for special attention."  

The different element names are just style suggestions on how 
to request that attention.  There is an assumption that people 
will recognize which groupings are *really* important (so that 
<em>=<strong>, but the others do not suggest extra importance), 
and that people will "just know" what the presentation "really 
means".  Unfortunately, we've already heard that <small> will 
suggest different things in English and Chinese.  If xhtml 2.0 
is serious about marking up only semantics, then it should 
probably deprecate all but <em> (possibly with a strength 
attribute, or a <deemph> counterpart) and <span>.

(3)
It really looks like the computer terms <code>, <kbd>, <samp>, <var>
should move into their own module; it's hard to justify these as 
more fundamental than the edit module, or tables.

(4)
Does <pre> have any meaning other than being a shortcut for 
<p xml:space="preserve">

-jJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:00 GMT