W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Design question about formats based on XHTML 2

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:24:44 -0500
Message-ID: <44F4947C.5030209@aptest.com>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
CC: www-html@w3.org



David Woolley wrote:
>> What would be a good way to markup our sections? The role attribute
>> sounds like a candidate but looking at the XHTML2 specification it
>>     
>
> If the markup is domain application specific, use the X in XHTML and
> extend XHTML by invoking elements in your own, application 
> specific namespace.  Ideally get some industry level agreement on
> this, rather than inventing a proprietary one.
>
> In my view, role is for extensions to cover features that are 
> very common on web sites, but can be ignored by simple viewers,
> without loss of information. Even then, I'm uncomfortable that they
> are usurping the X in XHTML.
>   
In general, it is far easier to define domain-specific roles and their 
taxonomy than to extend XHTML's content model with new elements and/or 
attributes.  While XHTML is designed for extension, and the 
Modularization architecture is such that it is *possible* to define new 
elements, it is not for the meek.  The proper construction of extension 
modules and the integration of those modules into a new markup language 
is challenging.  It is far easier to take advantage of built in 
extension mechanisms such as the role attribute if, as this submitter 
indicated, all they are looking to do is annotate their content so it is 
more readily machine processed later.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 19:25:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT