- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote: > So I've read over the specifications for XHTML 1.0 and I'm surprised by > it. Right now, the spec reads more like a position paper, i.e. a statement of direction, elaborating a policy decision, rather than a complete formal spec. The issues with it are thus more substantive than technical. > I had no idea that migrating to XML would break so much. I assume you're talking about Section 4 and Appendix C - i.e. that even the infinitesimal fraction of HTML documents today which manage, perhaps by accident, to be SGML-compliant still won't be XML-compliant. And the insignificant minority of "editors" and the like which manage to extrude SGML-compliant HTML will have to be modified also. The biggest nudge-nudge-wink-wink of all, of course, has to do with "user agents". > HTML has always been a big hack. Now it's much bigger. Well, SGML was always a poor fit for HTML-in-practice. XML is an even poorer fit. > Also shouldn't the XHTML 1.0 specs define the semantics of the elements? > I was expecting a clause saying ``The semantics of the elements of XHTML > 1.0 are the same as the semantics of the elements of HTML 4.01'', but I > can't seem to find such a statements. I think that's the intent of Section 1 "What is XHTML?" : XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that : reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4.0 [HTML].[...] The details of this : family and its evolution are discussed in more detail in the section on : Future Directions. I agree, though, that an explicit statement to incorporate semantics would have been nice. Arjun
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 00:06:10 UTC