Discussion:
ReSpec: Intent to depracate XHTML 1.0 save support
Marcos Caceres
2016-05-16 02:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
XHTML 1.0 has been long deprecated in favor of XHTML5. In ReSpec,
we've been allowing folks to save as XHTML 1.0, but I'm wondering if
we can retire that capability?

Can anyone think of any valid reason to keep it around? It seems
harmful, as saving to a conforming XHTML 1.0 doc means we strip out
useful structuring tags and aria attributes.

Kind regards,
Marcos
Marcos Caceres
2016-05-16 02:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcos Caceres
Hi,
XHTML 1.0 has been long deprecated in favor of XHTML5. In ReSpec,
we've been allowing folks to save as XHTML 1.0, but I'm wondering if
we can retire that capability?
Can anyone think of any valid reason to keep it around? It seems
harmful, as saving to a conforming XHTML 1.0 doc means we strip out
useful structuring tags and aria attributes.
Relevant bug: 
https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/760
Shane McCarron
2016-05-16 11:32:02 UTC
Permalink
As I mentioned in the relevant PR, I think this is a bad idea. There are a
number of specs that were produced using XHTML 1, and if any of them need
an update for errata of whatnot in the future, it will be impossible to do
simply.
Post by Marcos Caceres
Post by Marcos Caceres
Hi,
XHTML 1.0 has been long deprecated in favor of XHTML5. In ReSpec,
we've been allowing folks to save as XHTML 1.0, but I'm wondering if
we can retire that capability?
Can anyone think of any valid reason to keep it around? It seems
harmful, as saving to a conforming XHTML 1.0 doc means we strip out
useful structuring tags and aria attributes.
https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/760
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
m***@marcosc.com
2016-05-16 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
As I mentioned in the relevant PR, I think this is a bad idea. There are a number of specs that were produced using XHTML 1, and if any of them need an update for errata of whatnot in the future, it will be impossible to do simply.
Well, not impossible - but you'd have to update the markup. Or throw in a legacy version of ReSpec (so, not a big deal).

Question: are any specs that are using xhtml 1.0 maintained today? Have they been updated in the last, say, 3-5 years? Are there examples of upcoming examples?
Post by Marcos Caceres
Post by Marcos Caceres
Hi,
XHTML 1.0 has been long deprecated in favor of XHTML5. In ReSpec,
we've been allowing folks to save as XHTML 1.0, but I'm wondering if
we can retire that capability?
Can anyone think of any valid reason to keep it around? It seems
harmful, as saving to a conforming XHTML 1.0 doc means we strip out
useful structuring tags and aria attributes.
https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/760
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Shane McCarron
2016-05-16 12:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Sorry - having a thread in github and here is confusing. I am going to
concentrate here.

We updated XHTML+RDFa as recently as last March. It has an XHTML 1
version.

I also note that the Pubrules continues to permit XHTML. I am not saying
that new specs should be authored in XHTML 1, but old specs get updated for
errata or reference changes from time to time.
Post by Shane McCarron
As I mentioned in the relevant PR, I think this is a bad idea. There are
a number of specs that were produced using XHTML 1, and if any of them need
an update for errata of whatnot in the future, it will be impossible to do
simply.
Well, not impossible - but you'd have to update the markup. Or throw in a
legacy version of ReSpec (so, not a big deal).
Question: are any specs that are using xhtml 1.0 maintained today? Have
they been updated in the last, say, 3-5 years? Are there examples of
upcoming examples?
Post by Marcos Caceres
Post by Marcos Caceres
Hi,
XHTML 1.0 has been long deprecated in favor of XHTML5. In ReSpec,
we've been allowing folks to save as XHTML 1.0, but I'm wondering if
we can retire that capability?
Can anyone think of any valid reason to keep it around? It seems
harmful, as saving to a conforming XHTML 1.0 doc means we strip out
useful structuring tags and aria attributes.
https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/760
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
m***@marcosc.com
2016-05-16 14:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Sorry - having a thread in github and here is confusing. I am going to concentrate here.
Np. Here is better.
We updated XHTML+RDFa as recently as last March. It has an XHTML 1 version.
Ok, that's good info. Anyone else know of other specs?
I also note that the Pubrules continues to permit XHTML. I am not saying that new specs should be authored in XHTML 1, but old specs get updated for errata or reference changes from time to time.
Would anything preventing future versions being published with xhtml5?
Post by m***@marcosc.com
As I mentioned in the relevant PR, I think this is a bad idea. There are a number of specs that were produced using XHTML 1, and if any of them need an update for errata of whatnot in the future, it will be impossible to do simply.
Well, not impossible - but you'd have to update the markup. Or throw in a legacy version of ReSpec (so, not a big deal).
Question: are any specs that are using xhtml 1.0 maintained today? Have they been updated in the last, say, 3-5 years? Are there examples of upcoming examples?
Post by Marcos Caceres
Post by Marcos Caceres
Hi,
XHTML 1.0 has been long deprecated in favor of XHTML5. In ReSpec,
we've been allowing folks to save as XHTML 1.0, but I'm wondering if
we can retire that capability?
Can anyone think of any valid reason to keep it around? It seems
harmful, as saving to a conforming XHTML 1.0 doc means we strip out
useful structuring tags and aria attributes.
https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/760
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Michiel Bijl
2016-05-31 16:17:58 UTC
Permalink
It has an XHTML 1 version.
But it has another version? Would it be feasible to forward the xhtml 1 version to some other version?

—Michiel
Marcos Caceres
2016-06-01 04:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michiel Bijl
It has an XHTML 1 version.
But it has another version? Would it be feasible to forward the xhtml 1 version to some
other version?
My (terribly limited) understanding is that RDFa is tied to xhtml 1
instead of xhtml 5, because there is no modern schema that one can
validate xhtml+rdfa against. Otherwise, it would be possible to
publish xhtml5+rdfa documents.

Shane, is that correct?
Shane McCarron
2016-06-01 11:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Not quite. XHTML+RDFa DEFINES a markup language - xhtml-rfda. This is
based upon XHTML 1.0. So we need to publish a version of the specification
that uses that markup language.
Post by Michiel Bijl
Post by Michiel Bijl
It has an XHTML 1 version.
But it has another version? Would it be feasible to forward the xhtml 1
version to some
Post by Michiel Bijl
other version?
My (terribly limited) understanding is that RDFa is tied to xhtml 1
instead of xhtml 5, because there is no modern schema that one can
validate xhtml+rdfa against. Otherwise, it would be possible to
publish xhtml5+rdfa documents.
Shane, is that correct?
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Loading...