Re: Comments on the Content & Markup alternatives

A few comments:

[1] I had to Google PF Working Group. So many new acronyms to learn!

[2] I'm a bit wary of custom elements. I recall many of us spent years
developing vocabularies which consisted entirely of custom elements,
and yet found many benefits in switching to plain HTML. Would this
make validation more difficult? Is EPUB ready for new elements? Are we
now assuming javascript support is universal, even though that's not
the case in the ebook world right now? I would also argue that
anything defined in the same spec as shadow-dom probably shouldn't be
called "simple" :)

Dave


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> As agreed with Markus and Liza, I have just added these comments to the wiki page:
>
> https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/StructuralSemantics
>
> with the proviso that these are _not_ comments reflecting any consensus...
>
> Ivan
>
> On 08 May 2014, at 13:45 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Markus, Tzviya, all,
>>
>> I have tried to give my assessment on the various options listed in [1]. Note that I have also added the 'Appropriateness' feature, as discussed on the call. My assessment is attached as a text file.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/StructuralSemantics#Approaches:Solution_Criteria_and_Options
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <content & markup.txt>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 16:39:49 UTC