I'll forward a rejected mail.
Takuya ASADA
Forwarded message 1
> From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
> To: gra@zeppo.East.Sun.COM
> Cc: www-mobile@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XHTML Basic Working Draft has been published
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:31:32 +0900
>
> Gary Adams - SMI Software Development <gra@zeppo.East.Sun.COM> wrote:
>
> > Since XHTML Basic is derrived from the XHTML 1.1 modules, it is important
> > to make sure that XHTML 1.1 has sufficiently fine grain modules defined, so
> > that significant endorsement can be made for the Basic subset based on
> > specific functional need for the common subset which should span current
usage
> > of WML and Compact HTML features.
>
> On the other hand, there are concerns that if we make modules too
> fragmented, it would result in less interoperable variants. Indeed
> we have studied usages of WML, Compact HTML, i-mode HTML, MML and
> so on, and if we try to define the "common" subset of those "current"
> languages, very few features will be left. We are trying to create
> a "reasonable" subset, not the "minimum" subset.
Creating a reasonable subset is a fair goal for the Basic subset. This
is a subjective goal that is hard to measure or criticize. The only point
I was trying to make was that there was no bottom up construction of
the basic subset, because it is tied to the modularization in XHTML 1.1
and there was no subsetting beyond the XHTML 1.1 modules.
>
> > I believe the current XHTML 1.1 basic text module contains more features
> > than are expected on the lowest common denominator devices. Would it be
possible
> > to remove items such as code, samp, and var from the basic text module?
>
> The HTML WG has already discussed this issue. The consensus was to
> remove presentational elements but keep phrasal elements. Elements
> like code, samp, and var are considered as phrasal elements, so we
> didn't move them out of the Basic Text module.
I can understand why phrasal elements were collected together, because from
a document perspective they all function in a similar manner. From a mobile
device perspective, the semantic need for specific types of markup are less
likely to justify the full range of elements in the basic text module.
In practice, I expect transcoding to elliminate these tags from
transmission over the air.
>
> I'm sure different people have different opinions on what should
> constitute "basic" features. And from content provider's side,
> if we make XHTML Basic too "basic", it would be less attractive
> and fewer people will use it. Balancing those rather conflicting
> needs is one of the most difficult part of this work.
It's important to have meaningful modules and effective ways of combining
functionality. It's unlikely that the majority of user agents will only
support the Basic subset. Even on mobile devices the expectation has to
include the Basic subset, new Events, new Forms, basic SVG, and basic SMIL.
I realize that many special interests are represented in the html working
group and that it is difficult to get to a minimum acceptable subset for
all parties. My main goal in bringing this up at this time is to make
sure there is no legitimate reason to further subset the basic proposal.
There is plenty of technology available for combining functionality
(modules, namespaces, schemas, profiles, etc.) and the only thing that
could cause future fragmentation, would be if someone had reason to
subset a standard module. e.g. block/inline structural/phrasal or
academic/computing document centric markup.
Since XHTML 1.1 combines these in a single module, the Basic subset is
not at liberty to do further reduction in a standard way.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
> W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
I have no problem with this thread ending here, and am glad that the html wg
at least discussed the issue. Just thought this would be a good time to
bring up the issue to make sure everyone was comfortable with the final
resolution.