W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2007

Re: XHTML2.0 - transclusion

From: Jakub Dabrowski <jakubdab@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:17:54 +0200
Message-ID: <932c89350701240217w55cdbe4pdcb91e3915c37a9b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis" <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
2007/1/24, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>:

> Well, let's take your example (application/xhtml+xml to text/plain)
> even. What specification defines how:
>
> <a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/hamlet.1.4.html"
> title="Hamlet (MIT Online Edition), Act 1, Scene 2">the ghost scene in
> Hamlet</a>
>
> should be represented in text/plain?


right now i'm thinking about 3 types of interpreting "type":
1. plain - included text with removed all tags
2. html - with tags
3. xhtml - only if inclusion is valid xhtml

>
> You didn't comment on my suggestion of replacing transid with #.

you meant 3.3 Proposal 3 ?

Thinking about "<em>cannot get content from remote server</em>",
> shouldn't fallback content be a genuine fallback? Shouldn't messages
> about being unable to load content be left to User Agents to construct
> in a consistent fashion? "Cannot load remote image" would not usually be
> good alt attribute text.


ok, but sometimes there must be some content in author's intention. object
tag  allows  other tags inside. eg. you can try to show video, if it's
unavailable - image, otherwise - text. that's hwo it works. by default -
your idea seems to be ok.

Regards,
Jakub
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 10:18:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT