- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:38:24 -0500
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
- Cc: elm@east.sun.com
At 11:13 2000 07 20 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote: >Questions: > >1) Would people find this suite of tools useful? I suspect so. >2) Would people with expertise in xslt volunteer to help > create the xhtml->xml translation? I don't understand this--is there a typo here? What does it mean to go from xhtml to xml? >3) Do people have specific requirements for the common format? The current xmlspec DTD does pretty well for me. >4) How extensible should the common format be? Ah, this is always a tricky one. Everyone wants to extend any common format in some way, but then it's not so common. And the other tools, such as xslt transforms and various stylesheets, don't work. I actually prefer minimal extensibility--I think conformance is part of what it means to call something a "standard" or "recommendation" <smile/>. People should try to stick within the given format, and only if that really doesn't work, then they should lobby to get the common format extended or changed, but on-the-fly extensibility is really at loggerheads with being "common". paul
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2000 11:38:32 UTC