On Friday 11 November 2005 12:30 pm, Scott L. Holmes wrote:
> --- Peter Ring <> wrote:
> <snip>Lots of really good ideas</snip>
>
> > It might be neccessary to use some extensions
> > to or an alternative represenation of CSS in
> > order to implement property groups and other
> > features that cannot be modelled in CSS.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Peter Ring
>
> I have some experience in extending the (modular)
> xhtml 1.0 Basic DTD to great affect (I added
> XInclude among other things). I also find that
> xhtml is many times much easier to use when its
> xml qualities are focused on - so I'd like to
> jump into this excellent conversation by pointing
> out that an extended xhtml could be perhaps the
> first transformation in the pipeline
> concentrating on the semantic meaning of the
> docbook xml. And then from there transform again
> into xhtml 1.0 strict to conform to www best
> practice (or HTML 4.1 for the purests out there).
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/xhtml-m12n-tutorial/
>
> Scott
I'm in favor of redefining best practices in terms of XML, not XHTML. One of
the problems with using xhtml is the fact that it requires a significant
restructuring of the original (DocBook) document, and thus requires the
author and/or page designer to understand the mapping between these two
disparate forms. Modern browsers and XML should be able to leverage the
native structure of DocBook and provide a full featured on-line interface.
This may require some rethinking of current approaches, learning new
technology, and pushing the browser technology to conform to the existing W3C
specs. It will likely also involve modifying these
specifications/recommendations. The pace where XSLT would play a role is in
generating XML indexes, links between the indexes and indexed terms, links to
and from glossed terms and glossary entries, TOCs, etc.
I understand why people use XSTL transforms into XHTML. I do it. But I
believe there is vast potential in breaking out of the XHTML framework.
I've build modestly sophisticated web pages with nothing but CSS and XML. I
know it can be done, and I know there are some problems. One thing some
people on this mailing list seem to be missing is that they are (or can be)
the driving force that determines which way the technology goes. The
response that the browsers don't support it, so it can't be done isn't a
valid argument.
Steven
