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 2004/04/05 15:05:20 UTC
[RT] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Forrest is able to use html files as content, but till now it uses
seamingly wierd extensions like ihtml and ehtml, that have come out of
different views of how Forrest should deal with them.
Recent needs have brought this to my attention, and I'd like to try and
close the issue.
Currently:
- ihtml -> cleaned html -> xdoc -> output
- ehtml -> pass as-is -> output (IIRC)
Basically what happens is that ehtml keeps all html tags till the
output, while ihtml removes all content that is not convertible to xdoc.
The reason for ihtml is that with it users can also see the content in
PDF and all other output formats.
The reason for ehtml is that sometimes one needs to add form elements or
other features to the pages that xdocs do not support.
Now, what remains to be decided is what to do with the 'html' extension.
Some wanted it to function as ihtml, some as ehtml.
Why would we need to have that extension work at all?
Simple: so that it becomes a snap to convert legacy sites to Forrest.
And for example make it possible for Gump to publish a simple unskinned
html report in case Forrest does not complete the run, *without* keeping
two source formats.
My last proposal was to do the following:
1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
2 - make it possible to insert namespaced html tags in the xdocs and
make these tags percolate through in the html output; this can
and should be extended also to fo and the like. In this case
ehtml pages would not be needed anymore, as users would write
namespaced xdocs (with xdoc and html namespaces)
3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
WDYT?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Joao Araujo <jo...@wireless-networks.com>.
Nicola,
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>> Well it is looking like a go-ahead so far. I am surprised
>> that not many other people have said anything about this.
>>
>> So how long do we let this vote run?
>
>
> Finished I guess. The result is that we (I?) shall implement .html
> usage as ihtml, and also xhtml support, and let non-visual but valid
> html tags percolate through.
>
>> ... keen to see this ability implemented. We can soon get
>> on and make a release.
>
>
> +1
>
+1,
I am still new to forrest.Anyway, let me know if you need some help.
Joao,
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Well it is looking like a go-ahead so far. I am surprised
> that not many other people have said anything about this.
>
> So how long do we let this vote run?
Finished I guess. The result is that we (I?) shall implement .html usage
as ihtml, and also xhtml support, and let non-visual but valid html tags
percolate through.
> ... keen to see this ability implemented. We can soon get
> on and make a release.
+1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Well it is looking like a go-ahead so far. I am surprised
that not many other people have said anything about this.
So how long do we let this vote run?
... keen to see this ability implemented. We can soon get
on and make a release.
--David
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
<snip/>
> >
> > 1 & 3 we could do now. 2 should wait until the xhtml2 switch. Right?
>
> Well, in fact no :-)
>
> We can do (2) right now, but use XHTML1.0. When we switch to XHTML2.0 as
> an intermediate format, it will be then trivial to add it to the DTDs
> under XHTML.
Do you mean just switch the DOCTYPE declarations? And evolve the
stylesheets too i suppose. We would still need to support the old
XHTML1.0 and i gather that Sitemap matches that we have in place
respond to the Public Identifier, so it is well handled.
I do wonder if we might be painting ourselves into a corner by
depending on the doctype declaration. That ties us to DTDs because
the parser must resolve it.
Sorry, this is disrupting the Vote thread, but i feel that it
might be a key issue.
> Basically .xhtml will work exactly like xml works now. We could in fact
> use the current .xml extensions, but xhtml has it's own extension and
> media type, so I prefer to do as outlined above.
I do not quite understand the plan for our "xdocs" format.
Is that still the "intermediate format"? I was under the
impression that our xdocs schema was going to evolve to become
a subset of xhtml2. Are you suggesting that it will actually
*be* the full xhtml2?
--David
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>>My last proposal was to do the following:
>>
>>Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well) and in the
>>past there have been contrasting opinions, I reckon that lazy consensus
>>does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
>>
>>The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
>>xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>>
>>Hence:
>>
>>1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
>>2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
>> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
>> through the html output.
>> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
>> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
>>3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
>>
>>Reference for html-xhtml:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>>
>>My vote: +1
>
> +1
>
> 1 & 3 we could do now. 2 should wait until the xhtml2 switch. Right?
Well, in fact no :-)
We can do (2) right now, but use XHTML1.0. When we switch to XHTML2.0 as
an intermediate format, it will be then trivial to add it to the DTDs
under XHTML.
Basically .xhtml will work exactly like xml works now. We could in fact
use the current .xml extensions, but xhtml has it's own extension and
media type, so I prefer to do as outlined above.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> My last proposal was to do the following:
>
> Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well) and in the
> past there have been contrasting opinions, I reckon that lazy consensus
> does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
>
> The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
> xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>
> Hence:
>
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
> 2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
> through the html output.
> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
>
> Reference for html-xhtml:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>
> My vote: +1
+1
1 & 3 we could do now. 2 should wait until the xhtml2 switch. Right?
--
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Joao Araujo <jo...@wireless-networks.com>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> My last proposal was to do the following:
>>
>
> Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well) and in the
> past there have been contrasting opinions, I reckon that lazy
> consensus does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
>
> The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
> xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>
> Hence:
>
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
> 2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
> through the html output.
> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
>
> Reference for html-xhtml:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>
> My vote: +1
>
Well, I had a bunch of problems mixing ihtml, ehtml to my docs. It is
also confusing.
I see that this would help a lot.
Can you also fix a thing with .ihtml((I mean the new html). We should
not need to have
a <h1> tag to see the page displayed. Right now this happens and cause
confusion.
My vote:+1 .
Joao,
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
...
> If anyone is brave enough to wade into the old discussion
> then here are some threads ...
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=105759865520117
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=106301676617936
>
> It seems that one of the main issues was that people would be
> confused when some of their html tags are silently discarded.
Hmmm... let's see... in this proposal we would have .html output that
gets cleaned before being processed, while .xhtml output does not...
It seems to me that in fact this issue still apply (BTW, thanks for
hunting it down).
Let's put it this way: we shall clean both the xhtml and the html from
presentation tags, but we shall not discard valid html tags that are in
the source when transforming to html output. I think this should fix the
issue.
...
>>Hmmm... How does RELAXNG use the right schema? IIRC with the namespaces.
>
> Yes.
>
> I have been collecting references about this issue, but damn - no time
> yet to properly investigate. Here are some ...
> ANN: Namespace Routing Language
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200306/msg00599.html
> http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html
> http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=2120
Ok, very well. I think then that there won't be issues when using this
too. We will still use DTD for the specs that require it, and move to
this for all the others.
...
> I do not understand all the issues and haven't time now to
> investigate. So +0 from me.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Collating the two mails from David.
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> ...
> >>and in the past there have been contrasting opinions, ...
> >
> > Those people do not seem to be around now. However the old
> > discussion may have some relevant stuff. Can anyone point
> > to the archives - i don't want to drag up any dispute,
> > just see if anything useful for the current situation.
>
> I don't have better pointers to give you than the ones you would find
> yourself with searching "ihtml" "html" "ehtml" "fix" "VOTE".
If anyone is brave enough to wade into the old discussion
then here are some threads ...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=105759865520117
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=106301676617936
It seems that one of the main issues was that people would be
confused when some of their html tags are silently discarded.
> ...
> >>The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
> >>xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
> >>
> >>Hence:
> >>
> >>1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
> >
> > Yes. Thanks for your description of cleaned html. That helped
> > me to understand the issues.
> >
> >>2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
> >> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
> >> through the html output.
> >
> > When you say "unrecognised tags" i gather that you mean that stuff
> > not explicitly dealt with by the stylesheets gets directly through
> > to the output. Those tags are still valid XHTML. Am i right?
>
> Correct. Basically we will be enhancing the output by skinning, not by
> filtering unrecognized tags (except style ones, as they don't follow the
> SOC principle), as they are still valid for the output. Of course they
> won't show in other outputs like PDF, but it's a reasonable limitation,
> given the advantages.
>
> >> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
> >> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
> >
> > What do you mean "force to do RNG validation"? Is that not a goal?
>
> Not a near-term goal for me. I mean that this solution does not force us
> to do this change also now...
>
> > Is multi-namespace support still possible down the track?
> > I mean to ensure that we are not cutting off future stuff.
>
> ... but of course it does not block it later on. The good thing is that
> in essence it's independent of the RNG change, thus less traumatic.
>
> >>3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
> >
> > Yes. There is no need when we have 1 and 2.
> >
> >>Reference for html-xhtml:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>
> ---8-<---8-<---8-<-- OTHER MAIL --8-<---8-<---8-<---8-<
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >>Dave Brondsema wrote:
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> >>> 1 & 3 we could do now. 2 should wait until the xhtml2 switch.
> >>> Right?
> >>
> >> Well, in fact no :-)
> >>
> >> We can do (2) right now, but use XHTML1.0. When we switch to
> >> XHTML2.0 as an intermediate format, it will be then trivial to add
> >> it to the DTDs under XHTML.
> >
> > Do you mean just switch the DOCTYPE declarations? And evolve the
> > stylesheets too i suppose. We would still need to support the old
> > XHTML1.0 and i gather that Sitemap matches that we have in place
> > respond to the Public Identifier, so it is well handled.
>
> Yes, we would be just adding a new stylesheet for the new DTD, just as
> we do now for the xml extension.
>
> > I do wonder if we might be painting ourselves into a corner by
> > depending on the doctype declaration. That ties us to DTDs because
> > the parser must resolve it.
> >
> > Sorry, this is disrupting the Vote thread, but i feel that it might
> > be a key issue.
>
> Hmmm... How does RELAXNG use the right schema? IIRC with the namespaces.
Yes.
I have been collecting references about this issue, but damn - no time
yet to properly investigate. Here are some ...
ANN: Namespace Routing Language
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200306/msg00599.html
http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html
http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=2120
> But XHTML comes with a DTD... IIUC we will in fact need to configure the
> selector for the future RelaxNG, but in any case the concept remains.
>
> >> Basically .xhtml will work exactly like xml works now. We could in
> >> fact use the current .xml extensions, but xhtml has it's own
> >> extension and media type, so I prefer to do as outlined above.
> >
> > I do not quite understand the plan for our "xdocs" format.
> > Is that still the "intermediate format"? I was under the
> > impression that our xdocs schema was going to evolve to become
> > a subset of xhtml2. Are you suggesting that it will actually
> > *be* the full xhtml2?
>
> Actually this plan is indipendent from the XHTML2 thing. In this vote
> thread the xdocs remain the intermediate format, and XHTML2 is inserted
> just because it will use the same .xhtml extension, to show that this
> proposal won't interfere with the future changes.
Okay.
I do not understand all the issues and haven't time now to
investigate. So +0 from me.
--David
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Collating the two mails from David.
David Crossley wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
...
>>and in the past there have been contrasting opinions, ...
>
> Those people do not seem to be around now. However the old
> discussion may have some relevant stuff. Can anyone point
> to the archives - i don't want to drag up any dispute,
> just see if anything useful for the current situation.
I don't have better pointers to give you than the ones you would find
yourself with searching "ihtml" "html" "ehtml" "fix" "VOTE".
...
>>The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
>>xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>>
>>Hence:
>>
>>1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
>
> Yes. Thanks for your description of cleaned html. That helped
> me to understand the issues.
>
>>2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
>> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
>> through the html output.
>
> When you say "unrecognised tags" i gather that you mean that stuff
> not explicitly dealt with by the stylesheets gets directly through
> to the output. Those tags are still valid XHTML. Am i right?
Correct. Basically we will be enhancing the output by skinning, not by
filtering unrecognized tags (except style ones, as they don't follow the
SOC principle), as they are still valid for the output. Of course they
won't show in other outputs like PDF, but it's a reasonable limitation,
given the advantages.
>> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
>> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
>
> What do you mean "force to do RNG validation"? Is that not a goal?
Not a near-term goal for me. I mean that this solution does not force us
to do this change also now...
> Is multi-namespace support still possible down the track?
> I mean to ensure that we are not cutting off future stuff.
... but of course it does not block it later on. The good thing is that
in essence it's independent of the RNG change, thus less traumatic.
>>3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
>
> Yes. There is no need when we have 1 and 2.
>
>>Reference for html-xhtml:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
---8-<---8-<---8-<-- OTHER MAIL --8-<---8-<---8-<---8-<
David Crossley wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Dave Brondsema wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> 1 & 3 we could do now. 2 should wait until the xhtml2 switch.
>>> Right?
>>
>> Well, in fact no :-)
>>
>> We can do (2) right now, but use XHTML1.0. When we switch to
>> XHTML2.0 as an intermediate format, it will be then trivial to add
>> it to the DTDs under XHTML.
>
> Do you mean just switch the DOCTYPE declarations? And evolve the
> stylesheets too i suppose. We would still need to support the old
> XHTML1.0 and i gather that Sitemap matches that we have in place
> respond to the Public Identifier, so it is well handled.
Yes, we would be just adding a new stylesheet for the new DTD, just as
we do now for the xml extension.
> I do wonder if we might be painting ourselves into a corner by
> depending on the doctype declaration. That ties us to DTDs because
> the parser must resolve it.
>
> Sorry, this is disrupting the Vote thread, but i feel that it might
> be a key issue.
Hmmm... How does RELAXNG use the right schema? IIRC with the namespaces.
But XHTML comes with a DTD... IIUC we will in fact need to configure the
selector for the future RelaxNG, but in any case the concept remains.
>> Basically .xhtml will work exactly like xml works now. We could in
>> fact use the current .xml extensions, but xhtml has it's own
>> extension and media type, so I prefer to do as outlined above.
>
> I do not quite understand the plan for our "xdocs" format.
> Is that still the "intermediate format"? I was under the
> impression that our xdocs schema was going to evolve to become
> a subset of xhtml2. Are you suggesting that it will actually
> *be* the full xhtml2?
Actually this plan is indipendent from the XHTML2 thing. In this vote
thread the xdocs remain the intermediate format, and XHTML2 is inserted
just because it will use the same .xhtml extension, to show that this
proposal won't interfere with the future changes.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well)
It could just mean that everyone was busy during the few
days of the Proposal thread.
I do want to support your proposal, however i am still
getting my head around the ramifications.
> and in the past there have been contrasting opinions, ...
Those people do not seem to be around now. However the old
discussion may have some relevant stuff. Can anyone point
to the archives - i don't want to drag up any dispute,
just see if anything useful for the current situation.
> ...I reckon that lazy consensus
> does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
That is a sensible approach.
> The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
> xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>
> Hence:
>
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
Yes. Thanks for your description of cleaned html. That helped
me to understand the issues.
> 2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
> through the html output.
When you say "unrecognised tags" i gather that you mean that stuff
not explicitly dealt with by the stylesheets gets directly through
to the output. Those tags are still valid XHTML. Am i right?
> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
What do you mean "force to do RNG validation"? Is that not a goal?
Is multi-namespace support still possible down the track?
I mean to ensure that we are not cutting off future stuff.
> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
Yes. There is no need when we have 1 and 2.
> Reference for html-xhtml:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>
> My vote: +1
Re: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> My last proposal was to do the following:
>
>
> Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well) and in the
> past there have been contrasting opinions, I reckon that lazy consensus
> does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
>
> The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
> xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>
> Hence:
>
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
> 2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
> through the html output.
> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
>
> Reference for html-xhtml:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>
> My vote: +1
>
+1
Ross
forrest-side-includes (was: [VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml)
Posted by Michael Davey <Mi...@coderage.org>.
It would be really nice to have Apache-style server-side-includes
automatically
dealt with at the forrest stage.
How easy would this be to achieve? What does everyone else think?
--
Michael
BTW, my vote: a non-binding +1
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well) and in the
> past there have been contrasting opinions, I reckon that lazy
> consensus does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
>
> The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
> xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
>
> Hence:
>
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
> 2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
> and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
> through the html output.
> This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
> force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
>
> Reference for html-xhtml:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
[VOTE] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> ...
>
>> My last proposal was to do the following:
Since I have not recieved any comments (IOW all seems well) and in the
past there have been contrasting opinions, I reckon that lazy consensus
does not apply, and am thus now asking for a vote.
The goal is to make html files be treated as a source to clean, and
xhtml files as a source to skin (ala ehtml).
Hence:
1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
2 - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
through the html output.
This removes need for the multi-namespace support would instead
force us to do relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
Reference for html-xhtml:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
My vote: +1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [RT] Finalizing html-ihtml-ehtml
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
> My last proposal was to do the following:
>
> 1 - make .html extensions work as .ihtml
> 2 - make it possible to insert namespaced html tags in the xdocs and
> make these tags percolate through in the html output; this can
> and should be extended also to fo and the like. In this case
> ehtml pages would not be needed anymore, as users would write
> namespaced xdocs (with xdoc and html namespaces)
> 3 - deprecate .ihtml and .ehtml
Instead of 2:
2b - Add an .xhtml source extension that will be used also with xhtml2,
and have unrecognized tags that can exist in the output percolate
through. This removes the multi-namespace support that forces us to do
relax-ng validation or no validation at all.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
> WDYT?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------