- From: kelvSYC <kelvsyc@shaw.ca>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:29:02 -0600
- To: W3 HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
Well, this is my first time here, and after reading a bit of the XHTML 2.0 spec (and a little bit of XFrames and a couple of other things, I have these things to say: First, making it not backwards compatible is good. Now I don't have to consider many factors when I write the following. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- KelvSYC's point #1. Why have a Legacy Module if it isn't meant to be backwards compatible? KelvSYC's point #2. <h1> to <h6> seems redundant to me. We should kick them out. I think that some weird combination of <section> and <h> should do the job for both structure and presentation (through CSS). KelvSYC's point #3. The href attribute being global seems to be a sore spot to me. For one thing, browsers don't render the stuff in <head>. What would happen if you make <head href=""><!-- Head content here --></head>? KelvSYC's point #4. The line that separates structure and presentation seems to be very vague. I know many will disagree when someone says that elements such as <abbr>, <quote>, <dfn> seems to be "excess baggage", and that something along the lines of CSS with <span class="SuchAndSuch"></span> should be used. I personally don't think of them that way (being a person who likes to cut corners), but this definitive line should be cleared up. KelvSYC's point #5. If <line> replaces <br/>, then <br/> should be kicked. I can't see why you want both. KelvSYC's point #6. It seems to me like the <a> element is going to be kicked when XHTML2 becomes a Recommendation. Instead of throwing the href attribute in Core, how about you make another attribute collection full of <a> element attributes, and on a basis of necessity, throw that in to each element? KelvSYC's point #7. I think that <ol> and <ul> should be put together. If it's up to CSS to generate numbering/bulleting, then having two elements that are basically the same is "excess baggage". KelvSYC's point #8. Why have a Presentation Module at all, seeing that it isn't meant to be backwards compatible and that XHTML is structure-only? KelvSYC's point #9. Someone might have mentioned it before, but in the ssismap module, someone forgot to take out the row in the table that gives the ssismap attributes to <input>. Same deal with the target module and <form>. KelvSYC's point #10. Does XHTML 2.0 make the target module a bit redundant? I think the target module should be kicked since target is already a core attribute. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- KelvSYC's question #1. Will XPointer be an integral part of XHTML2 to reference parts of the same document? KelvSYC's question #2. Will someone please explain the difference between <div> and <p>? KelvSYC's question #3. I take it that <br/> is illegal in <line>? KelvSYC's question #4. How would inline frames work? Would it be as simple as putting an XFrame document inside of an XHTML one? KelvSYC's question #5. Is it possible to link to two pages at once (like one in the current window and one in the new one)? KelvSYC's question #6. It says that the defer attribute in <script> is not defined. What does it do? KelvSYC's question #7. Would the equivalent of <noframes> in XFrames be embedding non-XFrames stuff in an XFrames document (eg. XHTML)? KelvSYC's question #8. What would happen if someone mixed-and-matched XHTML 2.0 modules with XHTML 1.1 modules?
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 21:37:20 UTC