- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:49:00 +0100
- To: "'Boysko, Glenn'" <boysko@microstrategy.com>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <38131D48-AE79-45B1-86B7-44BA04A7575C@S009>
Hi Glenn, That's an interesting one. Do you mind posting some sample mark-up? I'm currently working with the XML Schemas for modularisation (partly in relation to XForms and partly in relation to XHTML 2) so it would be interesting to see your requirements. Regards, Mark Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/ _____ From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boysko, Glenn Sent: 31 May 2005 19:43 To: www-html@w3.org Subject: XHTML Modularization and Tables... Hello: We are defining our own XML application and wish to integrate XHTML into it. In particular, these XML tags provide dynamic scripting capabilities to XHTML generation. I have been successful in a base integration using the XHTML Modularization spec 1.0. The areas of problem have been introducing dynamic generation of tables. In particular, the authors did not include any "hooks" to enable foreign elements in between TABLE, THEAD, TR, TH, TD, etc. As a result, our DTD has to undefine the Tables module and redefine all of the rules to include our elements. I'm assuming that they felt it might have been too difficult to identify where foreign elements might be "wired" into this DTD. I see that the latest draft does not seem to address this either. Is there any consensus on whether this is likely to be addressed in any future specs? Thanks, Glenn Boysko
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 09:49:54 UTC