- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:53:26 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen schreef: >> * Steven Pemberton wrote: >>> Modularization certainly does serve a purpose, for instance keeping a >>> handle on different language profiles, such as XHTML Basic, Print and >>> 1.1, and documenting extension points to ease the process of combining >>> different schemas, as Masayasu Ishikawa demonstrated in his >>> XHTML+MathML+SVG profile >>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/), >>> therefore making it easier to define extensions (or contractions) to >>> XHTML. > > I may be totally missing the point, but how does the Modularization > make creating modified DTDs/schemas easier than duplicating a > monolithic DTD/schema and adding or removing stuff? Oh, XHTML Modularisation is very convenient! For the product we sell at my workplace, we have a proprietary language on top of XHTML (in its own namespace), and for that it’s much more convenient to build on top of XHTML modularisation than on e.g. the XML Schema for XHTML 1.0. > It appears that subsetters may want to subset in ways different from > those that were not recommended by the HTML WG anyway: > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0071.html#profile-text At least we don’t… ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:55:35 UTC