David Crossley wrote:
Tim Williams wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
The original topic was how to implement
views/xhtml2/internals. I reckon that they
are all entwined.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they aren't necessarily,
and I mean *technically*, entwined. I've tried, and apparently
failed, in several emails to describe in technical terms why they are
not entwined, but it's essentially for how Thorsten says, "views *are*
*just* replacing site2xhtml.xsl of leather-dev". If we view the
resultant html of document2html as an Interface (in oo terms), then
that's what views are programmed to and that's why they aren't
entwined.
Thanks to that paragraph i now understand heaps more
about views. I was seeing views as covering many,
if not all, of the steps in xdocs/TR/2005/WD-forrest10.html
Glad it is more confined. That means we can do things
in stages.
Hmmmm... I'll resist discussing now other than to say it would be well
worth while reading my discussion of *which* stages of the TR views
cover and compare that to the current implementation. I think we need to
discuss my what I said in my email in some detail, if I have that wrong
then there is no real argument about how to implmeent XHTML2 in core.
If we want to entwine them as a dev-decision, then that is obviously a
different story. I just want to be clear that technically, it is not
[in the current views implementation] entwined. I sincerely hope that
Thorsten will correct me if I've mis-spoke here.
I am trying to ensure that if views do have any
requirements regarding xhtml2, then these are
defined as early as possible. If there are not,
then great, it makes the job simpler.
Would someone please attempt to define
what we will discuss tomorrow.
My para above indicates one thing I think is important for discussion.
Here is what I wanted to start the session with:
"What are we trying to achieve by using XHMTL2 in the core?"
I suspect I will then follow up with the question below, whether I do or
not depends on the answers to the first question:
"What do we achieve by doing a partial implementation of XHTML2 in core?"
The reason for starting with these questions is that *can* does not mean
*should* and I hope that the answers to these questions will help us
understand whether we *should* do this in stages.
I guess that boils down to a question of what we gain/lose by doing it
in stages within our increasingly restrictive architecture or as a
rewrite of that architecture for an upcoming 1.0 release.
I'll repeat my opening question now, so people can think about it before
the IRC session:
What are we trying to achieve by using XHTML2 in the core?
Ross
