- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:54:31 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, plh@w3.org
On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:28 , Julian Reschke wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:30 , Julian Reschke wrote: >>> The problem is that you do not always have context. >>> >>> For instance, XHTML elements can appear in many other XML >>> documents, re-using the document markup semantics. In this case, >>> you frequently have a single element, and no context at all. >> That's a problem of the host language. Some elements need context >> and that's the end of their story. I don't think that <li> is >> broken because you don't know what type of list item it is without >> its container, or > > Where's the problem here? If some vocabulary uses <xhtml:li>, that > means "this is a list item". The container format may define its own > list, for instance. For one the context gives you meaning for its previous/next siblings which is otherwise unclear. >> that svg:rect is broken because while it retains its semantics it >> cannot be rendered without a container to define its viewport. >> If a host language reuses from XHTML, then it's up to it to provide >> the necessary context for interpretation. > > But that's a new situation. Until today, to find out what xhtml:foo > means, you checked the HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.whatever spec. > > Once we allow two different parties to continue development of the > language, there's no single answer anymore. > > So this breaks something that worked just fine before. It didn't work just fine before, we had a broken community which couldn't agree on where to take HTML and how. In fact we still have that, only we have a formal arrangement that hopefully might make it easier for them to talk together. My only push-back here is in using pseudo-technical arguments (vocabulary clashes, term reuse, etc.) to point fingers when what is really needed is someone with a little time to either resolve the differences or at the very least document them. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:55:09 UTC