Re: CDR Framework: Last Call Comments

On Monday, March 13, 2006, 3:08:06 PM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> * Steve K Speicher wrote:
>>In the case of our WICD profiles: mobile and full, full is a super-set
>>of mobile.  If full content were provided to a mobile profile only
>>capable device, then the mobile device would rely on user agent
>>conformance for handling unknown content.  Given that this fallback
>>behaviour would be XHTML fallback behaviour - "If a user agent
>>encounters an element it does not recognize, it must process the
>>element's content"[1] - we expect that much (though admitedly, not
>>all) full XHTML 1.0 content will be usable (though not perfectly
>>rendered, of course) by a typical end user.

>> [1]

BH> seems to
BH> have clearer text, "If a user agent encounters an element it does not
BH> recognize, it must continue to process the children of that element.
BH> If the content is text, the text must be presented to the user."

Thats one type of fallback mechanism. Its not a very good one in general, and for example has given big difficulties in mixing RDF with XHTML.

BH>  While
BH> this text is not entirely clear to me, it seems that in case of e.g.

BH>   <style>
BH>     ...
BH>   </style>

BH> or

BH>   <script ...>
BH>     ...
BH>   </script>

BH> the style sheet or script "must be presented to the user".

I agree the text is not entirely clear. Since those elements are in the head element of xhtml, they are not processed annyway. More problematic is whether the text you quote requires ignoring the value of the display property for content which is a child of body.

BH>  It is not
BH> clear to me how this would result in usable results. My homepage would
BH> be entirely unusable, for example.

 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 14:54:04 UTC