- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:43:13 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
In http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.announce/175 I "stumbled" over the "XHTML Modularization 1.1" last call, and looked into http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/changes.html One of the minor fixes is the deprecation of the legacy module. One (potential) problem I have with this module, apparently I can get either all of it, or nothing, see 3.1 (4) and 3.2 (4). Wrt the legacy module I'd be interested to get the minimum that's needed for new "backwards compatible" content, where "backwards compatible" would be a say HTML 3.2 browser. These old browsers have no idea what XHTML, CSS, DOCTYPE, DTDs, etc. is, from that POV the legacy module is irrelevant. But it could help me if I want to use tools like the validator with new backwards compatible content. For that it would help to split the legacy module into "cruft", stuff that's really unnecessary for content created today, and the rest, (arguably) necessary for legacy browsers. The "cruft" category would cover elements and attributes like <basefont>, <dir>, <menu>, <isindex>, <center>, <strike>, and the face + size attributes of <font>. In the case of <center> because <div align="center"> will do if needed, for <strike> because <s> is good (or bad) enough. Keeping <s>, <u>, and the color attribute of <font> in a then "decrufted" legacy module. For the second part of the legacy module enumerating several attributes I'm not sure which parts are unnecessary cruft, and what's potentially useful for new content. Starting to guess I'd say that background for <body> is cruft, compact="compact" for <dl>, and several others, but not all. For align in <legend> I don't get the idea, that's used with the forms module. The forms module cannot be used together with the basic forms module. Legacy browsers won't support the forms module, so why should they care about a legacy align of <legend> ? Would it be possible to split the legacy module in this way ? Frank
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 15:05:33 UTC