You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> on 2002/08/08 23:21:16 UTC
[RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of the
XHTML 2.0 proposal?
XHTML 2.0 proposal currently has <section> elements and navigation lists!
Oh, and also href to every tag and xforms and removal of deprecated tags!
http://roller.anthonyeden.com/page/rsal;jsessionid=6F4D80D04D7DDD76281BC6D3826D7494
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/08/06.html#changes_in_xhtml_20
Hey, why don't we follow this, it's *darn* close to DocumentDTD!
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of the XHTML 2.0 proposal?
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:20:01AM +1000, Kevin O'Neill wrote:
> {snip]
>
> > I took a *deep* look into XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (the modular thing) over the
> > past week, and it seemed quite difficult to me to import only portions
> > of it inside our existing doc-v11 DTD. I see XHTML2 is being build up
> > from the same modular stuff, so either we drop doc-v11 and move to
> > XHTML2, or we stick to doc-v11 for legacy purposes.
See http://www.xml.com/pub/r/334:
"The Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Simple Hypertext DTD (IBTWSH) is an XML
Document Type Definition (DTD) which describes a subset of XHTML Basic
for embedded use within other XML DTDs."
Unfortunately the referred site has vanished :( I'll contact the author.
Attached is a Relax NG version, which I've imported into my own schemas
with:
<grammar ...
<include href="ibtwsh6.rng">
<start combine="choice">
<ref name="project"/>
</start>
</include>
<define name="project">
...
</define>
...
</grammar>
How about Forrest adopting RNG as the primary schema format, and then
generating DTDs with James Clark's translator[1] ?
--Jeff
[1] http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/trang.html
> I recently had to do the same thing. My solution, switch from using DTDs for
> specification and validation and instead use
> RelaxNG (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/) James Clark has
> created xhtml 1.1 grammars http://thaiopensource.com/relaxng/xhtml/. They are
> so easy to combine, for example xhtml basic looks like this:
>
> <grammar ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
> xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0">
>
> <include href="modules/datatypes.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/attribs.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/struct.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/text.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/hypertext.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/list.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/basic-form.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/basic-table.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/image.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/param.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/object.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/meta.rng"/>
> <include href="modules/link.rng"/>
>
> <include href="modules/base.rng"/>
>
> </grammar>
>
> I've begun to switch more and more of my grammar relaxng it's one of those you use
> it once and you never go back (a little like xslt really ;))
>
> -k.
Re: [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of
the XHTML 2.0 proposal?
Posted by Kevin O'Neill <ke...@jacus.com.au>.
{snip]
> I took a *deep* look into XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (the modular thing) over the
> past week, and it seemed quite difficult to me to import only portions
> of it inside our existing doc-v11 DTD. I see XHTML2 is being build up
> from the same modular stuff, so either we drop doc-v11 and move to
> XHTML2, or we stick to doc-v11 for legacy purposes.
I recently had to do the same thing. My solution, switch from using DTDs for
specification and validation and instead use
RelaxNG (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/) James Clark has
created xhtml 1.1 grammars http://thaiopensource.com/relaxng/xhtml/. They are
so easy to combine, for example xhtml basic looks like this:
<grammar ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0">
<include href="modules/datatypes.rng"/>
<include href="modules/attribs.rng"/>
<include href="modules/struct.rng"/>
<include href="modules/text.rng"/>
<include href="modules/hypertext.rng"/>
<include href="modules/list.rng"/>
<include href="modules/basic-form.rng"/>
<include href="modules/basic-table.rng"/>
<include href="modules/image.rng"/>
<include href="modules/param.rng"/>
<include href="modules/object.rng"/>
<include href="modules/meta.rng"/>
<include href="modules/link.rng"/>
<include href="modules/base.rng"/>
</grammar>
I've begun to switch more and more of my grammar relaxng it's one of those you use
it once and you never go back (a little like xslt really ;))
-k.
Re: [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of
the XHTML 2.0 proposal?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> XHTML 2.0 proposal currently has <section> elements and navigation lists!
>> Oh, and also href to every tag and xforms and removal of deprecated tags!
>>
>> http://roller.anthonyeden.com/page/rsal;jsessionid=6F4D80D04D7DDD76281BC6D3826D7494
>>
>> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/08/06.html#changes_in_xhtml_20
>>
>> Hey, why don't we follow this, it's *darn* close to DocumentDTD!
>>
>
> (I'm not here ;-)
>
> I took a *deep* look into XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (the modular thing) over the
> past week, and it seemed quite difficult to me to import only portions
> of it inside our existing doc-v11 DTD. I see XHTML2 is being build up
> from the same modular stuff, so either we drop doc-v11 and move to
> XHTML2, or we stick to doc-v11 for legacy purposes.
>
> Since we haven't come to any official release for the DTD yet (my fault,
> I know), hence we haven't gone through the burden of convincing people
> to use our DTD and upgrade their docs accordingly, I don't know whether
> we are ready to throw what we have overboard.
>
> Personally, and not because I feel kind of responsible for doc-v11, I'd
> prefer to nurture them for a little while and see how they are adopted.
> Some people have been mailing the list and privately about their
> intention to use the Forrest DTDs - I don't want to alienate them (yet).
Sure, I intended that we can use the same tags, not necessarily the same
DTD.
In this way it would be much more easy to implement future editors
directly in the browsers, since the tags are basically the same.
This is intended to give hints over the cleanup of the DTD we have to do
for the link tags.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of
the XHTML 2.0 proposal?
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> XHTML 2.0 proposal currently has <section> elements and navigation lists!
> Oh, and also href to every tag and xforms and removal of deprecated tags!
>
> http://roller.anthonyeden.com/page/rsal;jsessionid=6F4D80D04D7DDD76281BC6D3826D7494
>
> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/08/06.html#changes_in_xhtml_20
>
> Hey, why don't we follow this, it's *darn* close to DocumentDTD!
>
(I'm not here ;-)
I took a *deep* look into XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (the modular thing) over the
past week, and it seemed quite difficult to me to import only portions
of it inside our existing doc-v11 DTD. I see XHTML2 is being build up
from the same modular stuff, so either we drop doc-v11 and move to
XHTML2, or we stick to doc-v11 for legacy purposes.
Since we haven't come to any official release for the DTD yet (my fault,
I know), hence we haven't gone through the burden of convincing people
to use our DTD and upgrade their docs accordingly, I don't know whether
we are ready to throw what we have overboard.
Personally, and not because I feel kind of responsible for doc-v11, I'd
prefer to nurture them for a little while and see how they are adopted.
Some people have been mailing the list and privately about their
intention to use the Forrest DTDs - I don't want to alienate them (yet).
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org