55
edits
The autocomplete attribute and web documents using XHTML: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
The autocomplete attribute and web documents using XHTML (view source)
Revision as of 09:07, 9 August 2006
, 9 August 2006→Authors who want to write XHTML, but use content negotiation to serve HTML as text/html to user agents that don't support XHTML
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
This is the group to whom the XSL transformations are relevant. Serving ''both'' XHTML and HTML requires a transformation, usually using XSL. My suggestion would require one additional template rule. Given such authors will often be transforming not only vanilla XHTML, but XForms, SVG, etc. to HTML equivalents, such a template rule is but a drop in an ocean of XSL complexity. (I expect such complexity to be increasingly standardized as XHTML is more widely adopted.) | This is the group to whom the XSL transformations are relevant. Serving ''both'' XHTML and HTML requires a transformation, usually using XSL. My suggestion would require one additional template rule. Given such authors will often be transforming not only vanilla XHTML, but XForms, SVG, etc. to HTML equivalents, such a template rule is but a drop in an ocean of XSL complexity. (I expect such complexity to be increasingly standardized as XHTML is more widely adopted.) | ||
== Appendix A: What about WHATWG? | == Appendix A: What about WHATWG? == | ||
I welcome and support the work of WHATWG on Web Forms 2.0 and Web Applications 1.0. When Web Forms 2.0 is finalized, it seems set to become a welcome addition to the HTML armoury. Unfortunately, I do not believe it currently offers much to help XHTML authors. Unlike my microformat, Web Forms 2.0 offers nothing at all to authors of XHTML 1.0: there is no way to incorporate its <code>autocomplete</code> attribute in their markup. And unlike my namespaced attribute, its <code>autocomplete</code> currently cannot be legitimately included in an modular XHTML document, as far as I can tell. Although Web Forms 2.0 claims to be XHTML as well as HTML, it seems incompatible with the W3C's specifications for XML markup, according to which only the W3C alone is allowed to extend the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace. The Web Forms 2.0 XHTML Module (http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#xhtml-module-def) is at present an only a curiosity. By extending this namespace, it violates the W3C's own specification for XHTML Family Modules (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_module): "The module definition's elements and attributes must be part of an XML namespace [XMLNAMES]. If the module is defined by an organization other than the W3C, this namespace must NOT be the same as the namespace in which other W3C modules are defined." Nor, judging by the Working Draft for the next version of the Modularization specification, is that requirement likely to change in the future (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/conformance.html#s_conform_module). So Web Forms cannot be part of a conforming XHTML host language or XHTML integration set document - that is, it cannot claim XHTML conformance of any sort. | I welcome and support the work of WHATWG on Web Forms 2.0 and Web Applications 1.0. When Web Forms 2.0 is finalized, it seems set to become a welcome addition to the HTML armoury. Unfortunately, I do not believe it currently offers much to help XHTML authors. Unlike my microformat, Web Forms 2.0 offers nothing at all to authors of XHTML 1.0: there is no way to incorporate its <code>autocomplete</code> attribute in their markup. And unlike my namespaced attribute, its <code>autocomplete</code> currently cannot be legitimately included in an modular XHTML document, as far as I can tell. Although Web Forms 2.0 claims to be XHTML as well as HTML, it seems incompatible with the W3C's specifications for XML markup, according to which only the W3C alone is allowed to extend the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace. The Web Forms 2.0 XHTML Module (http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#xhtml-module-def) is at present an only a curiosity. By extending this namespace, it violates the W3C's own specification for XHTML Family Modules (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/conformance.html#s_conform_module): "The module definition's elements and attributes must be part of an XML namespace [XMLNAMES]. If the module is defined by an organization other than the W3C, this namespace must NOT be the same as the namespace in which other W3C modules are defined." Nor, judging by the Working Draft for the next version of the Modularization specification, is that requirement likely to change in the future (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/conformance.html#s_conform_module). So Web Forms cannot be part of a conforming XHTML host language or XHTML integration set document - that is, it cannot claim XHTML conformance of any sort. | ||