xml-dev - Re: why distinctions within XHTML?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

Oh, and to clarify -- I'm talking here about the notion of combining
XHTML with modules of other vocabularies, not defining the internal
modules that will allow XHTML subsetting.

Both notions of modularization are important.  But the one that'll make
XHTML more widely used in the near future is the one that makes it easy
to embed words from the XHTML vocabulary with others (such as CBL) and
vice versa.  The issue of the rules used to constrain such combinations
is separable -- and should be separated, not glommed onto three URIs
that can't possibly begin to capture the variety of rules (a million is
not a low estimate) that will be used to constrain such combinations.

- Dave



David Brownell wrote:
> 
> Ann Navarro wrote:
> >
> > While that's certainly a possibility -- before anyone gets too excited
> > (either way) over it, the modularization work isn't done, so we may see
> > something like this, but we may not.
> 
> For the record, some of my feedback back in March to the XHTML work
> was that the basics of the modularization stuff should be in the
> first release, since it's that fundamental.  I'd even support holding
> back a 1.0 release to ensure modularization is covered.
> 
> The current "10% solution" (three namespace URIs) is IMNSHO the wrong
> tack -- either don't address it at all, or hold out for a complete
> solution, but don't put something in that's widely perceived as broken
> and is universally acknowledged as incomplete!
> 
> - Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)