RE: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report


I suggested asking for information from the OMG. I was not proposing a collaborative effort. Since OMG has interfaces to multiple languages, it makes sense to ask them what have they done XML or XML schema.  I agree that latter on, if the technology is available, there has to be a new project. As I understand, our project is to obtain information. We certainly are not responsible for providing a detailed solution. My discussion has been on the specification of the problem. In this case, the suggested approaches are based on the specification. I believe that it would be very difficult to produce a solution that is consistent with the present design and associated practices of HTML5. I also respect that the individuals who are happy with this design and its requirements and that they should not be forced to change their practices to comply with changes in HTML5 that would permit efficient interfacing with XML.

However, I believe that there would be a real use for a browser language that had as close as reasonable to identical functionality and syntax with HTML5 and still would work with XML. The easiest way to achieve this is to require that XHTML5 be compatible with XML. Therefore, unless anyone has a strong reason, I will call or write to OMG and ask them what they have or know of that permits IDL (CORBA) to work with the web and XML. I suspect that this may have been done because the National Ignition Facility at Livermore uses CORBA.

Bob Leif

From: Michael Champion [] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 1:15 PM
To:; 'Norman Walsh'
Subject: RE: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report


I believe that what you are suggesting is beyond the scope of this task force, or at least beyond the scope of what most TF participants are interested in doing.  I suggest you propose a Community Group to discuss how OMG IDL and XML might work better together. If you find a critical mass of people who are interested, you can explore the question together.  See


From: [] On Behalf Of Robert Leif
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:46 AM
To: 'Norman Walsh'
Subject: RE: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report


Norm et al.

Technically, I was not proposing any changes for HTML5. My proposals were for XHTML5, which I believe, as of yet, has neither been implemented nor described in any detail. As for prefixes, I believe that the RDFa and semantic web proponents will be the ones who argue for the addition of prefixes. Meanwhile, we have the Health and Human Services Health Information Technology group pushing XML based standards, as well as Health Level 7 (HL7) and many other governmental, scientific, engineering, and technical groups creating their standards in XML. The lack of interoperation between HTML5 and XML is significant and potentially an expensive management problem. I am proposing a diplomatic solution to make the necessary changes to XHTML5, which is supposed to be XML compatible.  I suggest the we ask OMG for input on interfacing IDL with XML. It is quite possible that they have done it.

Please See below:

Bob Leif

>From the OMG web site:

How does this work in My programming language? (


In order to integrate the heterogeneous computing environment that we've built up over the years, CORBA needs to work in just about every programming language. IDL is not a programming language - it's great for defining interfaces, but it doesn't have the constructs you'd need to write a program. 


To do this, OMG has defined mappings from IDL to just about every major programming language: C, C++, Java, Smalltalk, COBOL, Ada, Lisp, PL/1, Python, Ruby and IDLscript have standard mappings.  Implementations of mappings to other languages are available. 


A mapping assigns a language variable type to each IDL variable type, and a translation from IDL's operation format to the language's invocation of a member function or other operation invocation format. Mappings also specify memory usage conventions for client and server sides, and conventions that allow CORBA's infrastructure to perform services for the object implementation: A mapping to an OO language might, for example, assign names to the base classes for the implementation and specify how the implementation classes should derive from IDL-generated classes. 


Language mappings are very precise: When you apply an OMG language mapping to an IDL file, you always get the same language constructs out. To our distributed programming environment, this provides portability in addition to predictability


-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Walsh [] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report


"Robert Leif" < <>> writes:


> Norm et al.


> “Do you think there's any possibility of achieving consensus for a 

> model that says HTML5 and XHTML5 are that radically different in 

> design and philosophy?”


> I do think that it is possible to achieve a consensus for a model.


You're proposal, as I understood it, was that the XHTML serialization of HTML5 would allow arbitrary namespaces and prefixes, like XML, while the non-XML serialization would not. If I've understood you incorrectly, please let me know. If not, I encourage you to shop that idea around the HTML community. I think you'll find it very difficult to garner any support at all. But do let me know.


                                        Be seeing you,




Norman Walsh < <>> | Act from reason, and failure makes you

 <>            | rethink and study harder. Act from

                              | faith, and failure makes you blame

                              | someone and push harder.

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 03:57:52 UTC