Le 24 août 06 à 00:01, Jim Jewett a écrit :
> Perhaps a comp module (with keyboard, samp, var, etc) could be
> published as a demonstration of extending xhtml 2?

Again
+1 See the issue
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0121 


> It wouldn't be part of core xhtml 2, but it would still be easily
> available in a standardized form, and it would lower the barrier to
> other extensions.

It can even be part of core XHTML 2.0 by reference. It would become a  
MAY not a MUST as in: Authors MAY use to describe? etc.

It's why it is very important to define a clear mechanism, because it  
would make in the same shot XHTML 2.0
	- a lot easier to maintain
	- a lot easier to extend
	- a lot easier to maintain the semantics extensions
	- a lot easier to define new modules in the future after  
publications of XHTML 2.0

In the end a far more flexible language.

Keep in XHTML 2.0, the semantics of structure (p, list, l, etc.),  
replace the the semantics of meaning by role/property modules.


* Computing vocabulary: var, samp, kbd, code, blockcode
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0121 
* Quotation/Reference vocabulary: quote, blockquote, cite
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0110 
* Contact vocabulary: address (misnamed)
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0096 
* Address vocabulary: (missing)
* Glossary vocabulary: dfn, role="definition"
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0117 

* And then many possible modules which could be defined by external  
bodies and W3C for each needs.




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ 
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ 
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***