- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:13:42 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
David Orchard wrote: > I completely agree that a really big problem with version #s is what is > the # identifying in compound documents. However, I don't know if the > usage of HTML with a bunch of stuff is really a compromise, so much as > just a limited scope of identification. There are still things that > could be usefully done with identifying the version of HTML regardless > of the distributed extensions. > Certainly in the context of XHTML Modularization and XHTML Family Markup Languages, the concept is that compound documents are created by defining a compound schema. Such a schema has a name, and a version. If you are authoring content in such a markup language, you reference that name and that version. As an author, I know what I am developing my content against (content model, semantics). As a consumer I can see that name and say "oh! I know that one" or "what is that about?" As a user agent, either 1) know what it means 'cause it is well known, or 2) can discover the content model via dereferencing the pointer to a schema it understands. If there are bits a user agent does not understand, XHTML M12N has rules for how the user agent should behave. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 16:16:05 UTC