- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:01:47 +0300
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
[Forgot to cc www-html. Sent to the www-html-editor.] 1.3.1 Script and Events Since the specification requires the documents to conform to restrictions that are not applicable to all XHTML documents, it is unlikely that casually authored XHTML documents would happen to be conforming XHTML-Print documents. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect some preprocessing to take place in the application before sending a document to the printer. That application could be required to discard script elements without burdening the printer with that task. Such modification would change the document tree, though, and could change the matching of CSS selectors. If it is important to take into account the special case that someone could use a CSS selector such as "script + p" to style a paragraph, it would be necessary to elaborate on what "discarding" an element on the printer means (that is, is it discarded from the document tree or merely defaulted to display: none;). 2.1 Document Conformance Considering that printers are allowed to ignore non-conforming documents, requiring a particular doctype declaration and DTD validity looks like a significant burden for applications producing XHTML-Print documents. In particular, DTD validity requires namespaces to be represented in a particular way even though other representations would be semantically equivalent. This means applications producing XHTML-Print documents cannot use any off-the-shelf XML serializer but need a serializer specifically tailored to meet the requirements of XML-Print. Wouldn't it be enough allow DTDless documents as long as the element structure meets the requirements expressed in the DTD (even though this kind of conformance can't be checked with a [DTD-]validating XML processor)? It is said that if a "charset" parameter is present for the application/xhtml+xml MIME type, the only valid value is "utf-8". It would make sense to allow "utf-16" as well. All XML processors are required to support UTF-16 in addition to UTF-8, so allowing UTF-16 for XHTML-Print doesn't cause any additional burden to implementations. Also, the payload of Application/Vnd.pwg-multiplexed chunks is defined as octets, so UTF-16 strings can be delivered as Application/Vnd.pwg-multiplexed chunks without any further encoding. 3.10 Object Module "A printer MUST treat the object as a jpeg image when the value of the object element's type attribute is 'text/jpeg'." Why is the type attribute allowed to override the content type information delivered on the Application/Vnd.pwg-multiplexed or HTTP level? Previously the type attribute has been considered advisory so that user agents may omit requesting object they know they can't handle. (I assume "text/jpeg" is a mistake and means "image/jpeg"). 3.17 Character Entities The specification mentions that character entities are defined but doesn't say whether printers should support them. I think requiring XHTML-Print implementations to support character entities would be a very bad idea. Support for character entities is the only feature of XHTML-Print that requires the printer to process external entities. The burden of implementing a DTD catalog and parsing the huge (relative to the size of the usual XHTML documents) DTD files is significant compared to using a non-validating XML processor and not processing enternal entities at all. Since XHTML-Print is intended to be used with low-cost printers and the overwhelmingly most likely use case is that the documents are generated by software as opposed to being written by hand by humans, I suggest explicitly stating that printers should not be expected to support character entities (or any other features of XML that depend on the external entities to be processed, such as attribute defaulting). B.2 MIME type Application/Multiplexed The heading and the following reference to RFC3391 should say Application/Vnd.pwg-multiplexed instead of Application/Multiplexed. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://www.iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2003 15:16:10 UTC