- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <benjaminhawkeslewis@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:50:43 +0100
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Hi, This is a comment for "XHTML 2.0" http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/ 2006-07-26 8th WD Extracted from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/0030.html May I please have a tracking of this comment. About draft generally, but especially http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/mod-image.html#s_imagemodule Given XHTML 2.0 will not actually be backwards compatible, is there any evidence that including unnecessary elements like <img> will "ease the transition to XHTML2" rather than hinder it by making XHTML 2.0 more complicated? There is a role for a document explaining how existing (X)HTML techniques map to XHTML 2.0 techniques, along the lines of "XForms for HTML authors" [*]. Such a document could explain that whereas in HTML you might use <IMG> to mark up images, in XHTML 2.0 you would always use <object>. It would be worth working on such a document alongside the spec itself (much as the accessibility WG drafts techniques at the same time as drafting guidelines). This should help ensure that no useful (X)HTML features are lost in the transition to XHTML 2.0. But in general XHTML 2.0 *must* make sense to its author-base on its own terms; it should *not* rely on legacy HTML elements to make itself comprehensible. [*] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2003/xforms-for-html-authors.html -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 10:50:49 UTC