W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: including ruby in an xhtml 1 transitional doc

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:59:53 +0200
Message-ID: <159175109921.20020703125953@w3.org>
To: www-international@w3.org, Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>

On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, 9:24:37 AM, Tex wrote:

TT> I have an xhtml transitional page which is using Ruby.

TT> I would like it to validate. If I change to XML 1.1 which includes Ruby
TT> it seems I have to make it a more strictly XML conforming doc.

Both XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 use XML. There is no notion of 'more strictly
conforming' to XML.

TT> What is the proper way to add ruby to a 1.0 transitional doc,

aha, you refer to 'transitional' vs 'strict'. Yes, transitional is
being phased out. There is little presentational gloss remaining in
transitional that you can't do (better) with CSS.

TT>  or
TT> alternatively to
TT> have a 1.1. doc that accepts the older html markup?

TT> The page in question is:
TT> http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/unicode-example-ruby.html

That file is not even well formed. So since its not XML, its not XHTML

Six edits (missing spaces between attributes, missing quotes around
attribute values) made it well formed.

It was then invalid, because of the ruby, as you note.

Altering the doctype to XHTML 1.1 strict showed a couple of errors -
use of the lang attribute (easily fixed by deletion, xml:lang was
already there, or by search and replace to xml:lang if not).

Then there was the ultra-simple presentational stuff

<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFED" link="#0000EE"
vlink="#551A8B" alink="#FF0000">

totally simple to replace in less than a minute. You already had a
link to a stylesheet anyway. And some gratuitous use of center tags,
again not needed because class="ctr" looks like there is styling
applied ... and some bare text not inside paragraphs a couple of
places ... and use of the name attribute instead of the id attribute
for link destinations.

Thats it. 7 minutes elapsed time (including blow by blow commentary
email), valid XHTML 1.1 strict document. XML Spy is wonderful ;-)

Should I mail it to you?

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 07:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:22 UTC