Re: Updated index of all HTML elements

Jens O. Meiert, Sun, 30 Mar 2014 22:45:51 +0300:

> Essentially, the situation here appears different from the one with
HTML 4 and XHTML 1.0 (whose Transitional doctypes have been chosen),
and calling out XHTML 1.1 legacy elements seems to go against the
spirit of the XHTML 1.1 spec.

While I recognize Transitional vs. legacy to mean somewhat of a fine
line, I believe the index itself to be consistent. It does call out
the Transitional elements, but nothing that was tucked away for legacy
support purposes. Which by the way also applies to HTML 5.

Please let me know if you deem this problematic.

XHTML 1.1 is based on XHTML Modularization, which has a legacy module 
about which it says that it does not cover all legacy features - ”Just 
those that were thought to be of maximal use at the time this 
specification was written”.[1]

It thus therefore seems to me like it was within the spirit of XHTML 
Modularization to make use of the legacy features when needed. Also the 
modularization spec sas that ”Markup language authors should no longer" 
user  use those features - the do not say markup languages must not use 
them. As for XHTML 1.1, then it says about the legacy features that 
”These other facilities are available through modules defined in XHTML 
Modularization, and document authors are free to define document types 
based upon XHTML 1.1 that use these facilities (see [XHTMLMOD] for 
information on creating new document types).” So documents with those 
features would then I guess not be XHTML 1.1 - it would only be *based* 
upon XHMTL 1.1.

Btw, originally, XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Modularization included the @lang 
attribute, but only in the legacy module. When both specs were updated 
in 2010, it was moved to i18n module, which kind of shows - I think - 
that the legacy module can be viewed as a resource bank … 

So, I don't know. You say about your overview that you (mostly) links 
to the WHATWG spec. That’s a monolitic spec - which means that it will 
default to cover more than HTML5. For a related reason, you list 
<hgroup> as an element of HTMl5, even if this element is not included 
in the spec labelled "HTML 5" (except that it occurs in HTML5’s list of 
obsolete features). If you exclude the features that XHTML 1.1 
considers legacy features, then it seems to me that you should as well 
exclude the features that HTML 5 (W3) considers obsolete.

The most interesting overview would be one which covered 
 a) whether an element formally *covered* by the spec 
and b) noted its *status* in the the spec.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xhtml-modularization-20100729/abstract_modules.html#s_legacymodule

-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Sunday, 30 March 2014 20:13:07 UTC