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

Re: The xhtml:onkeypress architecture

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:45:57 +0100
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <0r15v156lmedt9j72igmqgo3t840jaaqf3@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Steven Pemberton wrote:
>Modularization certainly does serve a purpose, for instance keeping a 
>handle on different language profiles, such as XHTML Basic, Print and 
>1.1, and documenting extension points to ease the process of combining 
>different schemas, as Masayasu Ishikawa demonstrated in his 
>XHTML+MathML+SVG profile (http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/), 
>therefore making it easier to define extensions (or contractions) to XHTML.

Yes, I personally think it would have been worthwile to discuss in more
detail in the document how this could be used with other formats like
SVG or sXBL which don't use DTDs or XML Schema. As I understand it, the
SVG Working Group isn't really sure what use DTDs or XML Schemas could
serve and it's quite clear that one primary goal of schema languages is
to validate content, which isn't really met by XHTML Modularization, as
I explained in quite some detail repeatedly. One side effect of this is
that e.g. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2006/m12n-11-implementation.html
while meeting the constraints of the DTDs, is not a conforming document.
Since the HTML WG does not define processing of non-conforming content,
it seems such documents should rather be conforming, don't you agree?

>> Implementation Report and W3C Proposed Recommendation, confirms that
>> all the major XHTML implementations, Eclipse, oXygen, Sidewinder, and
>> XFormation, are conforming XHTML implementations.
>
>They can all handle XHTML *Modularization*.

Now I am a bit confused, the document defines the following conformance
classes,

  * XHTML Host Language Document Types
  * XHTML Integration Set Document Types
  * XHTML Family Modules
  * XHTML Family Documents
  * XHTML Family User Agents

As I understand it, the cited implementations are not document types or
modules or documents, so I assumed these must be considered User Agents?
Or is there a conformance class missing in the conformance section? The
implementation report is a bit confused, it says any validating XML pro-
cessors is a conforming XHTML implementation, I don't really understand.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 01:44:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:05 GMT