Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
>>BTW: I don't understand why people want to get Strict from DocBook.
>>XHTML/HTML Strict document type was intended to push authors to separate
>>content and style. But you did that already with DocBook -- you have
>>content (DocBook) separated from style (XSL stylesheets) in a much
>>better way than you can achieve with semantically poor HTML.
>
> Then it makes all the more sense to keep that separation in the resulting
> files as well, I think.
Why? What are the benefits? Strict is here just to push content/style
separation, you can still use Transitional and gain effect of CSS styling.
> I consider HTML and XHTML quite differently,
Same element and attribute sets. What is the difference here (except
possibility to use XML parser for XHTML)?
> and XHTML + CSS works lovely
> for that purpose. So I fail to see why a stylesheet cannot claim
> conformance to XHTML Strict. :)
Simply because XHTML Stict + CSS don't have enough power. For example
how would you map <orderedlist continuation="continues"> into XHTML
Strict + CSS?
Jirka
P.S. With no offense there is what I usualy say to people marketing
XHTML Stict: "If you want to look like you are marking up semantics then
use XHTML, but if you really want to markup up your semantic then go
DocBook or other custom markup. Point."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: http://www.kosek.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Profesionální školení a poradenství v oblasti technologií XML.
Podívejte se na náš nově spuštěný web http://DocBook.cz
Podrobný přehled školení http://xmlguru.cz/skoleni/
------------------------------------------------------------------
