- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:28:47 -0500
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 17:20 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 15:22 +0900, olivier Thereaux wrote: > > Hi Tim, Hi TAG list, > > (note I'm not subscribed, would appreciate being kept in Cc) > [...] > > > - Therefore, groups like ARIA ought to be able to extend XHTML by > > > introducing new elements and attributes. > > > > I think we have seen some progress in this area. See how the XHTML > > +RDFa was created, and can be validated (with the beta-soon-released > > validator only, for now). Note that they had to go and create a > > profile and DTD, that is, an XHTML+RDFa document cannot claim to be > > an XHTML document, with some stuff in a foreign namespace slapped > > into it. That, I believe, is contrary to the basic conformance > > statement for XHTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#strict > > This involves making a new driver DTD, right? > > Contrast that with the my:box usecase, which I suggest > is more web-like: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-versioning/2007Feb/0000 > > It seems to me that XML Schema substitution group were designed > for exactly this sort of extensibility, but XHTML, SMIL, SVG, > nor CDF is using it, and I can't figure out why not. ah... found some notes... Notes on schema best practices in the Interaction domain Robin Berjon, <robin.berjon@expway.fr> (2005-09-06) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2005Sep/att-0014/schema-compounding-and-BP.html <- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemata-users/2005Oct/0003.html Hmm... I don't see anything about substitution groups there. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 22:29:01 UTC