Re: [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of the XHTML 2.0 proposal?

[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?

[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.