- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 23:15:44 +0900
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com, W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > > > > olivier Thereaux wrote: >> >> On 6-May-08, at 1:53 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: >>> There are LOTS of modules in the xhtml namespace, and many of them >>> conflict with one another. So there would be no easy way to create >>> a DTD that contained all of the modules. >> >> Ah. I wasn't aware of conflicts between modules. Do you have examples >> handy? > Sure. Tables, and Basic Tables. Metaattributes from RDFa Syntax > and the meta attributes module from M12N 1.0. XForms and Forms. > Forms and Basic Forms. There are probably more. >> >> Is there, today, a document type that at least allows me to use the >> features of ARIA, ITS, and RDFa? >> >> W3C should either provide a document type mixing most interesting >> features of XHTML, or add a conformance level where XHTML can be used >> without a doctype, using only the namespace. > I disagree strongly that you can use the namespace as a language > selector. But I know others think that you can. However, since that > namespace is used for XHTML 1, 1.1, Basic 1.0, XHTML+RDFa, etc..... I > don't see how you could possibly use the namespace to indicate the > markup language in use. We have @version. Use that. >> >> A situation where one MUST use a doctype but isn't provided with a >> doctype to use all cool features of XHTML is rather >> counter-productive for the adoption of XHTML and its features, don't >> you think? > Well.... None of the cool features you are referring to are actually > at REC status yet. with one exception - ITS ;) > If they were, you can be confidenf we would also be introducing a new > markup language. So will you do that for XHTML+ITS? Felix
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 14:16:25 UTC