- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:13:17 +0900
- To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Le 24 août 06 à 00:01, Jim Jewett a écrit :
> Perhaps a comp module (with keyboard, samp, var, etc) could be
> published as a demonstration of extending xhtml 2?
Again
+1 See the issue
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0121
> It wouldn't be part of core xhtml 2, but it would still be easily
> available in a standardized form, and it would lower the barrier to
> other extensions.
It can even be part of core XHTML 2.0 by reference. It would become a
MAY not a MUST as in: Authors MAY use to describe… etc.
It's why it is very important to define a clear mechanism, because it
would make in the same shot XHTML 2.0
- a lot easier to maintain
- a lot easier to extend
- a lot easier to maintain the semantics extensions
- a lot easier to define new modules in the future after
publications of XHTML 2.0
In the end a far more flexible language.
Keep in XHTML 2.0, the semantics of structure (p, list, l, etc.),
replace the the semantics of meaning by role/property modules.
* Computing vocabulary: var, samp, kbd, code, blockcode
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0121
* Quotation/Reference vocabulary: quote, blockquote, cite
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0110
* Contact vocabulary: address (misnamed)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0096
* Address vocabulary: (missing)
* Glossary vocabulary: dfn, role="definition"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0117
* And then many possible modules which could be defined by external
bodies and W3C for each needs.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2006 00:14:18 UTC