Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: rfcmarkup changes

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>]

Frank Ellermann schrieb:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>  
> > This seems to be incorrect (see for instance
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Strict#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_style>).
>
> Oh, yes, also for <style> and <script>, not only <pre>, I tend
> to forget those two because I don't use them.  With the same
> restriction as for <pre>, the xml:space="preserved" can't be
> modified.
>
> In another message (h7 / h8 / h9):  ACK, the rfcmarkup output
> should be valid, it's not that we disagree about everything ;-)
>
> In a third message about XHTML and CSS in general:
>
> > I think it's perfectly reasonable to use CSS in a way that's
> > compatible with the almost all user agents *in use*.
>
> Disabling CSS for testing is a remommended WAI technique.  If
> you end up with something that simply doesn't work without CSS
> it's not only some stoneage browsers which might be affected,
> it could also hurt state of the art mobile devices.  

Semantics markup instead of div/span is something that actually *helps* 
accessibility. If browsing the HTML version of an RFC on a mobile device 
with no CSS support shows headers in a bigger font, I really really 
couldn't care less.

> > The markup is generated by a script (not a human), and 
> > consumed by user agents (not humans). (No, I don't argue the
> > benefits of XHTML over HTML, I just don't see those *here*).
>
> You're the author of tools doing interesting stuff with XML -
> do these tools also work with similar SGML ?  The one time I

No.

> tried to parse XHTML "manually" (writing a script) I was very
> happy that it was "only" XHTML and not HTML.

But why would you want to parse the output of the RFCmarkup script in 
the first place? I'd really like to understand the use case?

Best regards, Julian


_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss