W3C

XHTML Basic 1.1 Last Call Disposition of Comments

8 November 2006

This version:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2006/11/xhtml-basic11-lc-doc-20061114
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-basic11-lc-doc
Editors:
Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.

Abstract

This document outlines the way in which the XHTML 2 Working Group addressed the comments submitted during the XHTML Basic 1.1 last call period.

Status of this document

During the last call period for XHTML Basic 1.1, a number of comments were received from both inside and outside of the W3C. This document summarizes those comments and describes the ways in which the comments were addressed by the XHTML 2 Working Group.

Note that the majority of this document is automatically generated from the Working Group's database of comments. As such, it may contain typographical or stylistic errors. If so, these are contained in the original submissions, and the XHTML 2 Working Group elected to not change these submissions.

This document is a product of the W3C's XHTML 2 Working Group. This document may be updated, replaced or rendered obsolete by other W3C documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use this document as reference material or to cite it as other than "work in progress". This document is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by the W3C membership.

This document has been produced as part of the W3C HTML Activity. The goals of the XHTML 2 Working Group are discussed in the XHTML 2 Working Group charter.

Please send detailed comments on this document to www-html-editor@w3.org. We cannot guarantee a personal response, but we will try when it is appropriate. Public discussion on HTML features takes place on the mailing list www-html@w3.org.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.

Table of Contents

IssueStateResolution
9617: XHTML Basic 1.1: inconsistence on "target" and "value" attributes (+ other final remarks) Approved and Implemented Value was incorrectly deprecated earlier. It is being re-introduced into XHTML 2. It is being put into XHTML Basic at the request of the mobile device community. It is specifically for use in cases where things need to be numbered explicitly but still need an ordered list "semantic". As to its use on the "ul" element, which is possible, we do not think this is wrong. It just means it is not necessarily presented to the user. Presentation of this is dictated by the rules in HTML 4.01 and CSS. 2) target is not necessarily restricted to frames; it for addressing an environment. 3) This is also a request from the mobile community because they needed it today. We are free to extend out collection of modules at any point, and we have added a module in the context of XHTML Basic 1.1 to address this request. 4) We will emphasize these as appropriate.
9612: XHTML Basic 1.1: 'button' element missing Approved and Implemented Will be fixed in the next draft.
9619: MWBP comments on XHTML Basic 1.1 Approved and Implemented 1) we are resolving any inconsistencies. 2) it has only been done with feedback from them. 3) Will add an informative reference.
9608: XHTML Basic should reference media type RFC Approved and Implemented This is a Last Call comment. Aggreed to include a reference to the media type.
9636: [XHTML Basic] Last call comment from HCG Approved and Implemented Agreed.

1. XHTML-Basic

1.1 XHTML Basic 1.1: inconsistence on "target" and "value" attributes (+ other final remarks)

PROBLEM ID: 9617

STATE: Approved and Implemented
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: None

NOTES:

  Value was incorrectly deprecated earlier.  It is being re-introduced into XHTML
  2.  It is being put into XHTML Basic at the request of the mobile device
  community. It is specifically for use in cases where things need to be numbered
  explicitly but still need an ordered list "semantic".
  
  As to its use on the "ul" element, which is possible, we do not think this is
  wrong.  It just means it is not necessarily presented to the user. 
  Presentation
  of this is dictated by the rules in HTML 4.01 and CSS.
  
  2) target is not necessarily restricted to frames; it for addressing an
  environment.
  
  3) This is also a request from the mobile community because they needed it
  today.  We are free to extend out collection of modules at any point, and we
  have added a module in the context of XHTML Basic 1.1 to address this request.
  
  4) We will emphasize these as appropriate.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: "Alexandre Alapetite" <alexandre@alapetite.net>
  
  
  Dear HTML editors,
  I am surprised of the choice of XHTML Basic 1.1 to introduce 3 new attributes
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-basic-20060705/#abstract]. In any case, if they are to be used, the recommendation should
  imho contain more explanations.
  
  Among other things, those new attributes will make that XHTML Basic 1.1 is not purely based on XHTML Modularization 1.1, is no
  longer a subset of XHTML 1.1 or even XHTML 1.0 Transitional. This will make the situation more complex imho, especially when
  given the purpose of XHTML Basic, which should be simple and a kind of common denominator.
  
  
  1) The "value" attribute for <li> tags was deprecated in HTML 4
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#adef-value-LI] and only allowed in the transitional version. It was forbidden in
  XHML 1.0 Strict, XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic 1.0 and is not in XHTML modularization 1.1. The current explanations about the use of
  this "value" attribute are in the HTML 4 specification where it is deprecated.
  
  If XHTML Basic intends to re-introduce <li value="123">, I think the specification should at least explain how to use it today
  and why it has been un-deprecated.
  
  Please note that the current specification and schemas allow a code with unordered lists such as:
  
   <ul>
   <li value="2">example</li>
   </ul>
  
  I think this is wrong and if so, it should be stated in the specification.
  
  
  2) XHTML Basic 1.1 introduces the "target" attribute
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#h-6.16]
  as one of the default modules
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-basic-20060705/#s_xhtmlmodules].
  
  Historically, the "target" attribute was neither in HTML 3.2
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32] nor in HTML 2.0
  [http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/]. It has been tolerated in HTML 4 Transitional
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/sgml/loosedtd.html] and XHTML 1.0 Transitional
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/]. "Transitional versions" included the following recommendation: "Authors should
  use the Strict DTD when possible".
  
  And the "target" attribute has never been allowed in any strict HTML version, such as HTML 4 Strict
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/sgml/dtd.html] and XHTML 1.0 Strict
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/]. Later XHTML schemas based on XHTML modularisation have not allowed it either:
  XHTML Basic 1.0
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219/#s_xhtmlmodules] and XHTML 1.1
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/doctype.html#s_doctype]. So the "target" attribute has never been strictly
  allowed. See also
  [http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#target].
  
  However, now XHTML Basic 1.1 introduces the "target" attribute as one of the default modules.
  
  There have been long debates on the problems associated to the "target" attribute as well as frames. The target="_blank" is in
  particular known to be problematic, as reported by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#no-new-windows]. More generally, frames are not recommended
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#iddiv351037376]
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/xframes/#s_intro]. It is true that "target" can be used with e.g. <object> and not only frames, but the
  specification does not provide with any example or recommendation. See also discussion on
  [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2006Jul/0012.html].
  
  Here again, if XHTML Basic 1.1 intends to use the "target" attribute, the recommendation should imho be a bit more talkative in
  this regard.
  
  
  3) The "inputmode" is from XForms
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-20060314/sliceE.html]. I think it is strange to pick up only one new attribute from XForms
  (it is not in e.g. XHTML 1.1, XHTML 1.0, HTML 4) and bring it into XHTML Basic, especially since this attribute is unknown to
  XHTML modularization 1.1. In my opinion, XHTML Basic should only contain elements and attributes defined in XHTML
  Modularization.
  
  
  4) A final minor remark: Current major W3C's recommendations follow the RFC 2119 "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
  Requirement Levels" [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt]. This is in order to be clear about the signification of e.g. "must",
  "should" etc. and those special words are in this case emphasized.
  
  Examples:
  - XHTML Role Attribute Module [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20060725/#s_conformance]
  - XHTML Modularization 1.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-modularization-20060705/conformance.html#s_conform]
  - XML 1.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xml11-20060614/#sec-terminology]
  - XHTML 1.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/conformance.html#s_conform]
  
  But XHTML Basic 1.1 recommendation currently does not follow this model, as I think it "should".
  
  
  Cordially,
  Alexandre
  http://alexandre.alapetite.net
  
  

1.2 XHTML Basic 1.1: 'button' element missing

PROBLEM ID: 9612

STATE: Approved and Implemented
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  Will be fixed in the next draft.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
  
  
  Hello www-html-editor,
  
  The XHTML Forms Module defined in XHTML Modularization has an element 
  called 'button'.  However the listing of elements at 
  <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-basic-20060705/#s_xhtmlmodules> 
  makes no mention of it.
  
  Regards,
  
  Dave
  

FOLLOWUP 1:


  From: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
  
  Thanks. Yes, this has been spotted as an omission in the modules summary.
  
  Steven Pemberton
  
  On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:02:46 +0200, <dmh@dmh.org.uk> wrote:
  
  >
  >
  > Hello www-html-editor,
  >
  > The XHTML Forms Module defined in XHTML Modularization has an element
  > called 'button'.  However the listing of elements at
  > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-basic-20060705/#s_xhtmlmodules>
  > makes no mention of it.
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > Dave
  >
  >
  >
  
  

1.3 MWBP comments on XHTML Basic 1.1

PROBLEM ID: 9619

STATE: Approved and Implemented
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  1) we are resolving any inconsistencies.
  
  2) it has only been done with feedback from them.
  
  3) Will add an informative reference.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
  
  
  The Mobile Web Best Practices Group welcomes the new draft and 
  congratulates the HTML working group on its publication. Central to 
  BPWG's mission is the desire to make the Web more readily usable on 
  mobile devices. The introduction of the input mode module is therefore 
  highly welcome. We wish to make just three specific comments:
  
  1. We think that the continuing inconsistency between XHTML Basic and 
  XHTML-MP is a serious problem and that there must be a priority on 
  aligning them. We understand that the OMA has submitted detailed 
  comments about those inconsistencies and so we do not add further comment.
  
  2. The feature set included in XHTML Basic goes beyond what is often 
  implemented in mobile devices. Hence our work in developing Best 
  Practices that show how to work within the present paradigm. We ask what 
  input the XHTML Basic specification has had from Mobile Device 
  Manufacturers and Mobile Browser Vendors? Is there dialogue taking place 
  that can lead to full implementation in the near to medium term future? 
  We are concerned that continued development of partial implementations 
  makes life extremely difficult for content developers. Commitment to 
  consistent and complete implementations is what is needed.
  
  3. BPWG asks the HTML WG to consider including a reference to the Best 
  Practice document for developers of mobile web sites [1].
  
  Phil Archer
  On behalf of Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group
  
  
  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
  
  
  -- 
  Phil Archer
  Chief Technical Officer, ICRA
  w. http://www.icra.org/people/philarcher/
  
  Working for a Safer Internet
  

1.4 XHTML Basic should reference media type RFC

PROBLEM ID: 9608

STATE: Approved and Implemented
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  This is a Last Call comment.
  
  Aggreed to include a reference to the media type.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: shane@aptest.com
  
  Full_Name: Shane McCarron
  Submission from: (NULL) (71.34.6.137)
  
  
  XHTML 1.0 references RFC 3236 to define its media type
  [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt], but XHTML Basic does not.  It should.
  

1.5 [XHTML Basic] Last call comment from HCG

PROBLEM ID: 9636

STATE: Approved and Implemented
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  Agreed.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
  
  Forwarded from the HCG:
  
  The XHTML Basic spec should mention the media types that are used for  
  delivering it.
  
  See http://www.w3.org/2006/08/04-hcg-minutes.html#item02 (member only).
  
  Steven Pemberton