Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Ian Hickson]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
>
> FROIDURE Nicolas wrote:
> > - 2 attributes for  : max (like other fields) and type
> > (to specify a text mime type for the content edition bbcode, html,
> > xhtml, xbbcode etc...). It will be a good way to improve the quality
> > of the web by improving the quality of user interventions.
> 
> Already done, see maxlength and type at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#extensions1
> 
> Although as I've pointed out before, MIME types are not a sufficiently 
> specific tool: they don't differentiate between different versions of 
> HTML, can't suggest microformats, can't differentiate between full 
> documents and fragments, and so forth. Also BBCode, XBBCode, and the 
> various Wiki dialects don't even have MIME type. (Mind you, WHATWG could 
> actually submit some MIME type registrations to make type work a bit 
> better for the real web.)  So this area still desperately needs more 
> work.

I've dropped type="" (actually accept=""), as discussed in the past few 
weeks, because there was no interest from user agents, it didn't seem to 
solve a problem that wasn't solved by class="", and it has a series of 
difficulties (such as those described above).


> > - 1 attribute for code : type.
> 
> Not done really. One option would be to add microformats to the Wiki for 
> different languages, I suppose. If you were to do so, I suggest 
> including version numbers. PHP4 should not necessarily be highlighted 
> the same as PHP5. Otherwise one might as well use type and MIME types, 
> just as for , although I suspect many languages lack MIME 
> types.

I enourage people to use the class attribute for this (or 
data-something="" if they want to us this for input to a script).


> > - maybe an attribute for em and strong. Something like "degree" 
> > and a numeric value to notice the emphase degree of the sentences.
> 
> Whenever this semantic problem is raised, two alternatives are proposed: 
> either add an attribute to  and  or specify the semantic 
> meaning of nesting  and . Web Applications 1.0 currently 
> goes for the second option:
> 
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-em
> 
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-strong
> 
> Question for the editor: how many  equal one ?

They are orthogonal as defined now.


On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, FROIDURE Nicolas wrote:
>
> Maybe that the DTD syntax could be use. The official DTD for W3C 
> standards and a personal DTD for other languages. In all cases, i think 
> that bbcode, wiki and other 'easy' web languages with disappear when 
> browsers will include real WYSIWYG editors.

That's an interesting but somewhat expensive idea.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90 (Krzysztof ?elechowski)

[Sam Kuper]

On 13/12/2007, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... the set of English acronyms and the set of English
> > initialisms are disjoint subsets of the set of English
> > abbreviations.
>
> I don't believe they are disjoint, though I suppose you could declare
> (by fiat, perhaps falsely) that any particular word fits in only one
> category for any individual speaker.
>
> -jJ

Dear Jim,

A little further research suggests that the OED is not consistent on
this matter.

The definitions of 'acronym' and 'initialism' seem quite clearly to
indicate disjoint sets, essentially because if there were overlap
between the two sets, it would contain only terms for which
pronunciation has not been settled and cannot be settled simply by
examining the structure of the term for sufficient vowels, etc.* Such
terms, it could reasonably be argued, are not in the English language
(yet) and therefore don't count, and so the sets are indeed disjoint.
So, were it the case that 'earl' and 'yew are el' are both valid ways
of pronouncing the abbreviation 'URL', then this would be such a term.
(However, it is not: the settled pronunciation of URL is the latter of
the two above.)

However, if the above is correct, then 'JPEG' ought to be classed as
an initialism by the OED, since it cannot be pronounced as a word
(requiring, as it does, the insertion of a vowel sound after the 'J').
Yet, the OED actually classes JPEG as an acronym.

What, then, is this second ontology of initalisms/acronyms, since it
is clearly different from the first? I suspect it either desregards
(perhaps out of ignorance) the existence of initialisms as a distinct
set of abbreviations, or else regards them as a subset of acronyms.

Which ontology to choose? Take your pick. I prefer the former, as I
consider it to be better informed and also more useful. Of course, you
may differ...

Warmest regards,

Sam

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90 (Krzysztof ?elechowski)

[Krzysztof Żelechowski]

Dnia 13-12-2007, Cz o godzinie 00:43 +, Sam Kuper pisze:
> Dear Chris,
> 
> From the Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed today):
> 
> initialism: "The use of initials; a significative group of initial
> letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation
> for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced
> separately (contrasted with ACRONYM)."

You can use an axe as a hammer; that does not make it a hammer though.

> 
> acronym: "A word formed from the initial letters of other words. Hence
> as v. trans., to convert into an acronym (chiefly pass. and as pa.
> pple.)."
> 
> This is concordant with my understanding is that in English at least,
> acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, but not vice versa. That
> is, the set of English acronyms is a subset of the set of English
> abbreviations.
> 
> Whether or not this is true of Polish, it should not be asserted of
> English. 

I admit I am no expert in English.  I was afraid presenting my examples
in Polish would not make much sense here.

> A multilingual standard should accommodate the existing
> practice and terminology of the languages to which it applies; it
> should not attempt to re-define those practices or terminologies.

That is just what I say: Removing ACRONYM because it is a special case
for/indistinguishable from ABBR makes HTML English-centric.

> 
> (If you are not convinced, then consider this analogy: should the HTML
> spec have insisted that all languages marked up in HTML be written
> from left to right, using characters called 'a', 'b', 'c', etc?)
> 
> Sorry to make the point so strongly.

Nothing wrong with that; strong points are easier to discuss.

> 
> All best,
> 

Chris

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90 (Krzysztof ?elechowski)

[Sam Kuper]

I realise that one paragraph of my reply was insufficiently
unambiguous. Here is how I should have put it:

This is concordant with my understanding is that in English at least,
all acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, but not vice versa. That
is, the set of English acronyms and the set of English initialisms are
disjoint subsets of the set of English abbreviations. Furthermore,
there is a non-empty set of English abbreviations that contains no
English initialisms nor English acronyms.


All best,

Sam


On 13/12/2007, Sam Kuper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Chris,
>
> From the Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed today):
>
> initialism: "The use of initials; a significative group of initial
> letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation
> for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced
> separately (contrasted with ACRONYM)."
>
> acronym: "A word formed from the initial letters of other words. Hence
> as v. trans., to convert into an acronym (chiefly pass. and as pa.
> pple.)."
>
> This is concordant with my understanding is that in English at least,
> acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, but not vice versa. That
> is, the set of English acronyms is a subset of the set of English
> abbreviations.
>
> Whether or not this is true of Polish, it should not be asserted of
> English. A multilingual standard should accommodate the existing
> practice and terminology of the languages to which it applies; it
> should not attempt to re-define those practices or terminologies.
>
> (If you are not convinced, then consider this analogy: should the HTML
> spec have insisted that all languages marked up in HTML be written
> from left to right, using characters called 'a', 'b', 'c', etc?)
>
> Sorry to make the point so strongly.
>
> All best,
>
> Sam
>
>
> On 12/12/2007, Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may be right but this theory seems to be very specific to the
> > English language.  For example, you silently assume that "URL" is an
> > abbreviation; acronyms like "ZUS" or "PKO" are not considered to be
> > abbreviations in Polish.  The term "initialism" is stranger to HTML so
> > this distinction is essential for academic linguistic papers only;
> > Aspell does not even recognise this word.  However, the distinction
> > between an acronym and an abbreviation is clear and intuitive.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 22:29 +, Sam Kuper pisze:
> > > Dear Chris,
> > >
> > > Your classifications are incorrect, as is your rule of thumb. The
> > > following excerpt should clarify things:
> > >
> > > "Initialism[s] originally described abbreviations formed from
> > > initials, without reference to pronunciation. ... [Some people]
> > > differentiate between the [terms 'acronym' and 'initialism'],
> > > restricting 'acronym' to pronounceable words formed from the initial
> > > letters of the constituent words, and using 'initialism' ... for
> > > abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters. In
> > > the latter usage, examples of proper acronyms would be 'NATO' ... and
> > > 'radar' ..., while examples of initialisms would include 'FBI' ... and
> > > 'HTML'...
> > >
> > > There is no agreement on what to call abbreviations whose
> > > pronunciation involves the combination of letter names and words, such
> > > as 'JPEG' ... and 'MS-DOS' ... . These abbreviations are sometimes
> > > described as acronym–initialism hybrids...
> > >
> > > There is also no agreement as to what to call abbreviations that some
> > > pronounce as letters and others pronounce as a word. For example, the
> > > internet term 'URL' can be pronounced as individual letters or as a
> > > single word."
> > >
> > > (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A​cronym_and_initialism)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:20:56 +0100
> > > > Subject: Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90
> > > >
> > > > Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 08:59 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
> > > > > Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only 
> > > > > mark
> > > > > them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this 
> > > > > purpose, it
> > > > > doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different
> > > > > people disagree on which is which -- I say "ess quere ell" and "ewe 
> > > > > are
> > > > > ell", others say "sequel" and "earl").
> > > >
> > > > "SQL" and "URL" are acronyms because they are built from initial
> > > > letters.
> > > > "Mr.", "Dr.", "Ch." and "cf." are abbreviations.
> > > > "i.e." and "etc." are... er... abbreviations?
> > > > Except for these cases, I hardly see any valid disagreement.  A rule of
> > > > thumb is that abbreviations are usually written with a dot.
> > > > Chris
> >
> >
>

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90 (Krzysztof ?elechowski)

[Sam Kuper]

Dear Chris,

From the Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed today):

initialism: "The use of initials; a significative group of initial
letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation
for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced
separately (contrasted with ACRONYM)."

acronym: "A word formed from the initial letters of other words. Hence
as v. trans., to convert into an acronym (chiefly pass. and as pa.
pple.)."

This is concordant with my understanding is that in English at least,
acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, but not vice versa. That
is, the set of English acronyms is a subset of the set of English
abbreviations.

Whether or not this is true of Polish, it should not be asserted of
English. A multilingual standard should accommodate the existing
practice and terminology of the languages to which it applies; it
should not attempt to re-define those practices or terminologies.

(If you are not convinced, then consider this analogy: should the HTML
spec have insisted that all languages marked up in HTML be written
from left to right, using characters called 'a', 'b', 'c', etc?)

Sorry to make the point so strongly.

All best,

Sam


On 12/12/2007, Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may be right but this theory seems to be very specific to the
> English language.  For example, you silently assume that "URL" is an
> abbreviation; acronyms like "ZUS" or "PKO" are not considered to be
> abbreviations in Polish.  The term "initialism" is stranger to HTML so
> this distinction is essential for academic linguistic papers only;
> Aspell does not even recognise this word.  However, the distinction
> between an acronym and an abbreviation is clear and intuitive.
>
> Chris
>
> Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 22:29 +, Sam Kuper pisze:
> > Dear Chris,
> >
> > Your classifications are incorrect, as is your rule of thumb. The
> > following excerpt should clarify things:
> >
> > "Initialism[s] originally described abbreviations formed from
> > initials, without reference to pronunciation. ... [Some people]
> > differentiate between the [terms 'acronym' and 'initialism'],
> > restricting 'acronym' to pronounceable words formed from the initial
> > letters of the constituent words, and using 'initialism' ... for
> > abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters. In
> > the latter usage, examples of proper acronyms would be 'NATO' ... and
> > 'radar' ..., while examples of initialisms would include 'FBI' ... and
> > 'HTML'...
> >
> > There is no agreement on what to call abbreviations whose
> > pronunciation involves the combination of letter names and words, such
> > as 'JPEG' ... and 'MS-DOS' ... . These abbreviations are sometimes
> > described as acronym–initialism hybrids...
> >
> > There is also no agreement as to what to call abbreviations that some
> > pronounce as letters and others pronounce as a word. For example, the
> > internet term 'URL' can be pronounced as individual letters or as a
> > single word."
> >
> > (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A​cronym_and_initialism)
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:20:56 +0100
> > > Subject: Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90
> > >
> > > Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 08:59 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
> > > > Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only 
> > > > mark
> > > > them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this purpose, 
> > > > it
> > > > doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different
> > > > people disagree on which is which -- I say "ess quere ell" and "ewe are
> > > > ell", others say "sequel" and "earl").
> > >
> > > "SQL" and "URL" are acronyms because they are built from initial
> > > letters.
> > > "Mr.", "Dr.", "Ch." and "cf." are abbreviations.
> > > "i.e." and "etc." are... er... abbreviations?
> > > Except for these cases, I hardly see any valid disagreement.  A rule of
> > > thumb is that abbreviations are usually written with a dot.
> > > Chris
>
>

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90 (Krzysztof ?elechowski)

[Krzysztof Żelechowski]

You may be right but this theory seems to be very specific to the
English language.  For example, you silently assume that "URL" is an
abbreviation; acronyms like "ZUS" or "PKO" are not considered to be
abbreviations in Polish.  The term "initialism" is stranger to HTML so
this distinction is essential for academic linguistic papers only;
Aspell does not even recognise this word.  However, the distinction
between an acronym and an abbreviation is clear and intuitive.

Chris

Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 22:29 +, Sam Kuper pisze:
> Dear Chris,
> 
> Your classifications are incorrect, as is your rule of thumb. The
> following excerpt should clarify things:
> 
> "Initialism[s] originally described abbreviations formed from
> initials, without reference to pronunciation. ... [Some people]
> differentiate between the [terms 'acronym' and 'initialism'],
> restricting 'acronym' to pronounceable words formed from the initial
> letters of the constituent words, and using 'initialism' ... for
> abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters. In
> the latter usage, examples of proper acronyms would be 'NATO' ... and
> 'radar' ..., while examples of initialisms would include 'FBI' ... and
> 'HTML'...
> 
> There is no agreement on what to call abbreviations whose
> pronunciation involves the combination of letter names and words, such
> as 'JPEG' ... and 'MS-DOS' ... . These abbreviations are sometimes
> described as acronym–initialism hybrids...
> 
> There is also no agreement as to what to call abbreviations that some
> pronounce as letters and others pronounce as a word. For example, the
> internet term 'URL' can be pronounced as individual letters or as a
> single word."
> 
> (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A​cronym_and_initialism)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sam
> 
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:20:56 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90
> >
> > Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 08:59 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
> > > Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only mark
> > > them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this purpose, it
> > > doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different
> > > people disagree on which is which -- I say "ess quere ell" and "ewe are
> > > ell", others say "sequel" and "earl").
> >
> > "SQL" and "URL" are acronyms because they are built from initial
> > letters.
> > "Mr.", "Dr.", "Ch." and "cf." are abbreviations.
> > "i.e." and "etc." are... er... abbreviations?
> > Except for these cases, I hardly see any valid disagreement.  A rule of
> > thumb is that abbreviations are usually written with a dot.
> > Chris

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90 (Krzysztof ?elechowski)

[Sam Kuper]

Dear Chris,

Your classifications are incorrect, as is your rule of thumb. The
following excerpt should clarify things:

"Initialism[s] originally described abbreviations formed from
initials, without reference to pronunciation. ... [Some people]
differentiate between the [terms 'acronym' and 'initialism'],
restricting 'acronym' to pronounceable words formed from the initial
letters of the constituent words, and using 'initialism' ... for
abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters. In
the latter usage, examples of proper acronyms would be 'NATO' ... and
'radar' ..., while examples of initialisms would include 'FBI' ... and
'HTML'...

There is no agreement on what to call abbreviations whose
pronunciation involves the combination of letter names and words, such
as 'JPEG' ... and 'MS-DOS' ... . These abbreviations are sometimes
described as acronym–initialism hybrids...

There is also no agreement as to what to call abbreviations that some
pronounce as letters and others pronounce as a word. For example, the
internet term 'URL' can be pronounced as individual letters or as a
single word."

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A​cronym_and_initialism)

Best regards,

Sam

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:20:56 +0100
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90
>
> Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 08:59 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
> > Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only mark
> > them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this purpose, it
> > doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different
> > people disagree on which is which -- I say "ess quere ell" and "ewe are
> > ell", others say "sequel" and "earl").
>
> "SQL" and "URL" are acronyms because they are built from initial
> letters.
> "Mr.", "Dr.", "Ch." and "cf." are abbreviations.
> "i.e." and "etc." are... er... abbreviations?
> Except for these cases, I hardly see any valid disagreement.  A rule of
> thumb is that abbreviations are usually written with a dot.
> Chris

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Krzysztof Żelechowski]

Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 08:59 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
> Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only mark 
> them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this purpose, it 
> doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different 
> people disagree on which is which -- I say "ess quere ell" and "ewe are 
> ell", others say "sequel" and "earl").

"SQL" and "URL" are acronyms because they are built from initial
letters.
"Mr.", "Dr.", "Ch." and "cf." are abbreviations.
"i.e." and "etc." are... er... abbreviations? 
Except for these cases, I hardly see any valid disagreement.  A rule of
thumb is that abbreviations are usually written with a dot.
Chris

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[liorean]

On 29/12/2006, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you need a plugin for  ?

For the ability to distinguish the syntax and semantics of varying
types of code, in a virtually infinite set of possible different
syntaces and semantics.

> Currently, Web Applications 1.0 and XHTML 2 are both proceeding. Web
> Applications 1.0 has two serializations: an HTML serialization and a
> (slightly) richer XHTML serialization. Unfortunately, the current plan
> is for both "XHTML 5" (as Web Applications 1.0's XHTML serialization is
> jocularly called) and XHTML 2 to use the same namespace, so they will
> have to be distinguished by their schemas instead.

Their schemas are not present in the document. As such, user agents
will have to assume one set of semantics over the other. Simply
speaking, there can one be a single meaning of the XHTML namespace in
a single user agent without jumping through an endless amount of
hoops. And for XHTML5, that namespace must be the same as for XHTML
1.0. Changing the namespace is a no-go. So, if XHTML2 really wants to
play in the browser space, it needs to either fall in line or change
namespace.

> I personally suspect XHTML 2 development will continue. Web Applications
> 1.0's big strength, backwards compatibility, is simultaneously a
> weakness from which XHTML 2 need not suffer.

Well, the lack of backwards compatibility coupled with the use of the
same namespace makes XHTML5 and XHTML2 mutually exclusive.

> Like others also active on the www-html mailing list, I see no
> contradiction between expending effort on both drafts.

As long as it's done under full knowledge and intention of XHTML2 not
being used on the web, yes. If the goal of XHTML2 is to be usable on
the web, it needs to keep the guarantees and semantics of XHTML1.0 and
XHTML5, only ever doing changes by addition.

Or, under a different namespace.
-- 
David "liorean" Andersson

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Ian Hickson]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > They are defined as being different. The former represents emphasis 
> > and the latter importance.
> 
> That's a hopeless distinction (nor IMHO do the longer descriptions in 
> the draft adequately explain when to use one and when to use the other: 
> the use-cases look interchangeable to me).
> 
> OED Online (subscription-only) defines "emphasis" as: "Stress of voice 
> laid on a word or phrase to indicate that it implies something more 
> than, or different from, what it normally expresses, or simply to mark 
> its importance." Mirriam-Webster defines "emphasis" as: "force or 
> intensity of expression that gives impressiveness or importance to 
> something":
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/emphasis
> 
> Thus "stress emphasis" is merely a presentational effect to give 
> importance to something.

I don't really agree that it's that hopeless. Could you give some examples 
where you aren't sure which element would be appropriate?


> It's bizarre that the same draft fighting so hard for an unworkable 
> distinction between  and  also abolishes a potentially 
> useful distinction between acronyms (pronounced as a single word) and 
> other abbreviations.

Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only mark 
them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this purpose, it 
doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different 
people disagree on which is which -- I say "ess quere ell" and "ewe are 
ell", others say "sequel" and "earl").


BTW I couldn't see anything I could really fix in the spec to address your 
comments in:

   http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008849.html

Let me know if you have any specific requests relating to that e-mail.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:43:12 +0100, FROIDURE Nicolas  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

HTML5 won't have a DTD. None of the other languages have a DTD since
they aren't SGML. XHTML is moving towards schemas of various sorts,
which aren't DTDs either.


I didn't knew that ! What system will replace it ?


Prose.



I used bad words to tell you what i mean. In CSS, you'll define a word
emphasis like that : 0.1 em 0.2 em etc..., so, a degree attribute will
be in the same "logic". It can be wrong, but for browser, maybe too a
more simple implementation.


Not really.


--
Anne van Kesteren

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[FROIDURE Nicolas]

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote :

HTML5 won't have a DTD. None of the other languages have a DTD since
they aren't SGML. XHTML is moving towards schemas of various sorts,
which aren't DTDs either.
  

I didn't knew that ! What system will replace it ?

Also, while I recognize you're the developer of a WYSIWIG extension, I
don't think WYSIWIG is a workable conceptual model for HTML authoring
since (X)HTML is all about what you mean, not what you see. But I do
hope the inclusion of textarea format expectations will lead to the
development of editors more suited for (X)HTML authoring.
  
I say WYSIWYG cause nobody knows what a WYSIWYM editor is (especially 
Google users...) but the concept of this editor is a valid XHTML 1.0 
Strict source and a semantic edition of the content (Semantic with the 
toolbar (XHTML), stylistic with the sidebar (CSS)). But if you're 
interested about that, everything is explain on the website.



Why would you need a plugin for  ?
  
For highlighting code even if it is a "personal" or "private" language. 
And the advantage will be that while the browsers will work for the 
support of common languages, some independent developers will be able to 
create a plug in. A Firefox extension, for example, could be quickly 
developped and the code tag with it's new attributes will be quickly 
effective.

I don't follow this. What's wrong with:

em { font-style: italic; }
em em { font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; }

As opposed to:

em[degree=1] { font-style: italic }
em[degree=2] { font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; }
  
I used bad words to tell you what i mean. In CSS, you'll define a word 
emphasis like that : 0.1 em 0.2 em etc..., so, a degree attribute will 
be in the same "logic". It can be wrong, but for browser, maybe too a 
more simple implementation.

I see no contradiction between expending effort on both drafts.
  

OK, thank you for those precisions. Happy New year !

Nicolas FROIDURE

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis]

FROIDURE Nicolas wrote:

> Maybe that the DTD syntax could be use. The official DTD for W3C
> standards and a personal DTD for other languages. In all cases, i
> think that bbcode, wiki and other 'easy' web languages with disappear
> when browsers will include real WYSIWYG editors.

HTML5 won't have a DTD. None of the other languages have a DTD since
they aren't SGML. XHTML is moving towards schemas of various sorts,
which aren't DTDs either.

Also, while I recognize you're the developer of a WYSIWIG extension, I
don't think WYSIWIG is a workable conceptual model for HTML authoring
since (X)HTML is all about what you mean, not what you see. But I do
hope the inclusion of textarea format expectations will lead to the
development of editors more suited for (X)HTML authoring.

> Maybe a syntax like this could be used :
> W3C official types list : PHP4 | PHP5 | JS | Java | (...) | _*
>   The _ prefix should be used for personal (or non official) types.
> Maybe another attribute indicating the plugin needed could improve the
> functionality of this new feature.

Why would you need a plugin for  ?

> It's strange. The em implementation in the CSS is approaching of the
> first option. I think a degree attribute could correspond to the
> font-weight graduation implemented with CSS.

I don't follow this. What's wrong with:

em { font-style: italic; }
em em { font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; }

As opposed to:

em[degree=1] { font-style: italic }
em[degree=2] { font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; }

> Will the HTML5 stop the XHTML 2 progression (i prefer use XML...) ?
> 
It's up to W3C really. They're being a bit vague:

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166

Currently, Web Applications 1.0 and XHTML 2 are both proceeding. Web
Applications 1.0 has two serializations: an HTML serialization and a
(slightly) richer XHTML serialization. Unfortunately, the current plan
is for both "XHTML 5" (as Web Applications 1.0's XHTML serialization is
jocularly called) and XHTML 2 to use the same namespace, so they will
have to be distinguished by their schemas instead.

I personally suspect XHTML 2 development will continue. Web Applications
1.0's big strength, backwards compatibility, is simultaneously a
weakness from which XHTML 2 need not suffer.

If we develop standardized methodologies for negotiating and
transforming content, toolsets which produce conformant DOMs rather than
tag soup, and sufficiently detailed microformats, then transforming
between HTML2, HTML5, and XHTML2 needn't be a huge problem.

Like others also active on the www-html mailing list, I see no
contradiction between expending effort on both drafts.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> They are defined as being different. The former represents emphasis and  
> the latter importance.

That's a hopeless distinction (nor IMHO do the longer descriptions in
the draft adequately explain when to use one and when to use the other:
the use-cases look interchangeable to me). 

OED Online (subscription-only) defines "emphasis" as: "Stress of voice
laid on a word or phrase to indicate that it implies something more
than, or different from, what it normally expresses, or simply to mark
its importance." Mirriam-Webster defines "emphasis" as: "force or
intensity of expression that gives impressiveness or importance to
something":

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/emphasis

Thus "stress emphasis" is merely a presentational effect to give
importance to something.

It's bizarre that the same draft fighting so hard for an unworkable
distinction between  and  also abolishes a potentially
useful distinction between acronyms (pronounced as a single word) and
other abbreviations.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[FROIDURE Nicolas]

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:

FROIDURE Nicolas wrote:
  

- 2 attributes for  : max (like other fields) and type
(to specify a text mime type for the content edition bbcode, html,
xhtml, xbbcode etc...). It will be a good way to improve the quality
of the web by improving the quality of user interventions.



Already done, see maxlength and type at:

http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#extensions1

Although as I've pointed out before, MIME types are not a sufficiently
specific tool: they don't differentiate between different versions of
HTML, can't suggest microformats, can't differentiate between full
documents and fragments, and so forth. Also BBCode, XBBCode, and the
various Wiki dialects don't even have MIME type. (Mind you, WHATWG could
actually submit some MIME type registrations to make type work a bit
better for the real web.)  So this area still desperately needs more
work.
  
Maybe that the DTD syntax could be use. The official DTD for W3C 
standards and a personal DTD for other languages. In all cases, i think 
that bbcode, wiki and other 'easy' web languages with disappear when 
browsers will include real WYSIWYG editors.

- 1 attribute for  : autocomplete (it exists in XUL, a
value could be an URL to load when some contain is typed).



Autocomplete already exists as an security attribute for banks to use
and browser developers not to implement: 


http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#the-autocomplete

(Well, it works in Safari and OmniWeb which can subvert nonce-based
methods of preventing the autofilling of passwords.)

However, the autocompletion functionality you're talking about is
essentially provided by:

http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#the-datalist

and

http://www.w3.org/Submission/web-forms2/#fetching-data
  

Marvelous :-)
  

- 1 attribute for code : type.



Not done really. One option would be to add microformats to the Wiki for
different languages, I suppose. If you were to do so, I suggest
including version numbers. PHP4 should not necessarily be highlighted
the same as PHP5. Otherwise one might as well use type and MIME types,
just as for , although I suspect many languages lack MIME
types.
  

Maybe a syntax like this could be used :
W3C official types list : PHP4 | PHP5 | JS | Java | (...) | _*
 The _ prefix should be used for personal (or non official) types. 
Maybe another attribute indicating the plugin needed could improve the 
functionality of this new feature.

- maybe an attribute for em and strong. Something like "degree"
and a numeric value to notice the emphase degree of the sentences.



Whenever this semantic problem is raised, two alternatives are proposed:
either add an attribute to  and  or specify the semantic
meaning of nesting  and . Web Applications 1.0 currently
goes for the second option:
  
It's strange. The em implementation in the CSS is approaching of the 
first option. I think a degree attribute could correspond to the 
font-weight graduation implemented with CSS.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-em

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-strong

Question for the editor: how many  equal one ?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
  
By adding a smiley with Thunderbird, I'm wondering if any 
standardization currently exists.


Thanks for your answers, it was nice talking with you. By the way, do 
you know if the CSS will allow to include SVG images to an HTML document 
? Will the HTML5 stop the XHTML 2 progression (i prefer use XML...) ?


Best regards, Nicolas FROIDURE
BBComposer : XHTML, BBCode, Wiki and XBBCode WYSIWYG Editor for Firefox 

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:58:03 +0100, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Question for the editor: how many  equal one ?


They are defined as being different. The former represents emphasis and  
the latter importance.



--
Anne van Kesteren

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis]

FROIDURE Nicolas wrote:
> - 2 attributes for  : max (like other fields) and type
> (to specify a text mime type for the content edition bbcode, html,
> xhtml, xbbcode etc...). It will be a good way to improve the quality
> of the web by improving the quality of user interventions.

Already done, see maxlength and type at:

http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#extensions1

Although as I've pointed out before, MIME types are not a sufficiently
specific tool: they don't differentiate between different versions of
HTML, can't suggest microformats, can't differentiate between full
documents and fragments, and so forth. Also BBCode, XBBCode, and the
various Wiki dialects don't even have MIME type. (Mind you, WHATWG could
actually submit some MIME type registrations to make type work a bit
better for the real web.)  So this area still desperately needs more
work.

> - 1 attribute for  : autocomplete (it exists in XUL, a
> value could be an URL to load when some contain is typed).

Autocomplete already exists as an security attribute for banks to use
and browser developers not to implement: 

http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#the-autocomplete

(Well, it works in Safari and OmniWeb which can subvert nonce-based
methods of preventing the autofilling of passwords.)

However, the autocompletion functionality you're talking about is
essentially provided by:

http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#the-datalist

and

http://www.w3.org/Submission/web-forms2/#fetching-data

> - 1 attribute for code : type.

Not done really. One option would be to add microformats to the Wiki for
different languages, I suppose. If you were to do so, I suggest
including version numbers. PHP4 should not necessarily be highlighted
the same as PHP5. Otherwise one might as well use type and MIME types,
just as for , although I suspect many languages lack MIME
types.

> - maybe an attribute for em and strong. Something like "degree"
> and a numeric value to notice the emphase degree of the sentences.
> 
Whenever this semantic problem is raised, two alternatives are proposed:
either add an attribute to  and  or specify the semantic
meaning of nesting  and . Web Applications 1.0 currently
goes for the second option:

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-em

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-strong

Question for the editor: how many  equal one ?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90

[FROIDURE Nicolas]

 Hi,

  I don't know if you ever talk about that, but some things seems 
important to me for the next HTML version :

Web forms :
   - 2 attributes for  : max (like other fields) and type (to 
specify a text mime type for the content edition bbcode, html, xhtml, 
xbbcode etc...). It will be a good way to improve the quality of the web 
by *improving the quality of user interventions*.
   - 1 attribute for  : autocomplete (it exists in XUL, a value 
could be an URL to load when some contain is typed).

Semantic :
   - 1 attribute for code : type.
   - maybe an attribute for em and strong. Something like "degree" and 
a numeric value to notice the emphase degree of the sentences.


Regards, Nicolas FROIDURE.
http://bbcomposer.eliwork.com