XHTML 1.1 architectural DTD

[Thomas Koeppe]

Hello,

According to the W3C reference, XHTML 1.1 can be used as an architectural
base (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_defs.html#a_module_XHTML_Base_Architecture),

In that section reference is made to a meta-DTD "xhtml11-arch.dtd".
However, that one is never instantiated, nor does it seem necessary, since
the architecture is based on "xhtml11.dtd" as declared further down.

Has anyone found that file "xhtml11-arch.dtd", knows how it is different,
or succeeded implementing an XML doctype that is architecturally based on
XHTML 1.1?

Any input welcome. Thanks,

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Post by Thomas Koeppe
According to the W3C reference, XHTML 1.1 can be used as an
architectural base...
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_defs.html#a_module_XHTML_Base_Architecture

Oh my, have you stuck your head into a snake pit? :-)

You may want to note that the document does not seem to have been edited
since 2001, and it does carry a signature of sorts as originating from
Mr.Murray Altheim.

Murray is a good old SGML guy for sure, but I suspect that his attempt
to make XHTML available as an architecture ran into a brick wall as soon
as Sir TBL got news of it.

Surely you do know that the average "John Doe" is totally incapable of
understanding the inherent "finesse" of architectural forms processing
(he is not even capable to learn and understand what those words mean).

OTOH, same said Mr.Doe can within 5 minutes totally grasp the inherent
"beauty and elegance of namespaces", which in combination with some
usually very elaborate XSLT programming can generate some simple and
easy to grasp XHTML doc instances from any level of XML based noise.

The fact that most (but maybe not all) of that could be done much
simpler with a limited set of dedicated attributes on elements, and a
proper processor, has probably passed by on cloud free height for most
of the W3 dedicated crowd.

Post by Thomas Koeppe
In that section reference is made to a meta-DTD "xhtml11-arch.dtd".

Me thinks that case is "dead", sad to say.

[Thomas Koeppe]

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Thomas Koeppe
According to the W3C reference, XHTML 1.1 can be used as an
architectural base...
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_defs.html#a_module_XHTML_Base_Architecture

Oh my, have you stuck your head into a snake pit? :-)

Yay!

I had actually read about HTML architectural forms from way before that.
For instance, here's a fine tutorial:
http://www.isogen.com/papers/archintro.html

And the W3C also seemed to have thought that a way forward for HTML:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/future/papers/roconnor.html


I find the idea of architectures pretty appealing, because you can
incorporate some existing structure without having to modify it, and still
create your own completely distinct and private semantics... It's a bit
like a homomorphism between SGML doctypes ;-) (the kernel being the
architecural bridges, if you're into algebra).

So I was quite surprised to find it all the way up in XHTML 1.1, so I
reckoned that cannot just have been a joke...

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
You may want to note that the document does not seem to have been edited
since 2001, and it does carry a signature of sorts as originating from
Mr.Murray Altheim.
Murray is a good old SGML guy for sure, but I suspect that his attempt
to make XHTML available as an architecture ran into a brick wall as soon
as Sir TBL got news of it.

I see, that seems to explain a lot. I'm not too familiar with individuals
at the W3C (apart from TBL and the omnipotent James Clark), so thanks for
the background!

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
Surely you do know that the average "John Doe" is totally incapable of
understanding the inherent "finesse" of architectural forms processing
(he is not even capable to learn and understand what those words mean).

You're probably right; and if that's not enough, throw HyTime at Mr Doe
;-)

That said, I just built myself a little SGML doc that is architecturally
based on HTML 4.01, and it works fine with OpenSP, yay. (I had to use
ArcBase though rather than :arch.) Kindof pretty. Then I wanted to adopt
the same thing for XML, but that gives me plenty of errors in onsgmls, of
the kind that you cannot have CDATA sections in internal subsets etc.
Weird... So I thought maybe someone here has a working XML system arcbased
on XHTML.

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
OTOH, same said Mr.Doe can within 5 minutes totally grasp the inherent
"beauty and elegance of namespaces", which in combination with some
usually very elaborate XSLT programming can generate some simple and
easy to grasp XHTML doc instances from any level of XML based noise.

Semantics, I say, semantics! XSLT is for styling! ;-)
[I'm not too serious with all this. Of course XSLT is more chic.]

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
The fact that most (but maybe not all) of that could be done much
simpler with a limited set of dedicated attributes on elements, and a
proper processor, has probably passed by on cloud free height for most
of the W3 dedicated crowd.

Post by Thomas Koeppe
In that section reference is made to a meta-DTD "xhtml11-arch.dtd".

Me thinks that case is "dead", sad to say.

Thanks for all the info!