Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: XHTML Stylesheets

[Lars Trieloff <lars at trieloff dot net>]

Hi,
> And not to forget the correct namespace on the html root element. That
> problem was addressed in a recent thread on this list.
It was the beginning of this thread. But I left it out, because it seemed
very difficult after trying a weekend or two.
>
> I had quite some tough hours this weekend figuring out why Mozilla (0.96
> with MathML) doesn't render XHTML with embedded MathML correctly in all
> cases. So far I would say it requires a correct namespace for html and
> mathml-elements, the correct content-type (text/xhtml or text/xml?) or the
> correct file-suffix (.xhtml or .xml) if loading through file:-protocol. If
Mozilla, my friend :-) Mozilla requires Doctype, XMLNS, Well-Formedness and
xml or xhtml file suffix (for file:///) and content type text/xml (for
http://). But if you serve xhtml files with this content type to msie, it
will not render it, but show only the parse three.
> Wow, this seems to be a really radical switch to complete CSS-reliance to
> me. I wonder where to draw the border to not generate _any_ xhtml-elements
> but <div>s and <span>s and some other necessary action-(e.g. <a>) and
> meta-elements? What I mean is: We don't say goodbye to e.g. <b>,<i>,<hx>
> and others because it could all be done with CSS, do we?
Saying goodbye to <b> and <i> sounds good, because we have got <strong> and
<em>, which is better because aural browsers can speak something emphasized
but not bold. <h1>-<h6> is no presentation markup, it contains information
about the structure of the document. But if you take a look at the 65
elements that made it to xhtml Strict then you will see that nearly 95% are
structural and only <big> <b> and <i> are presentation markup, what means
that xhtml is in fact about organization and structurization of data and has
just some less elements 300? 200? so that the will have to make extensive
use of class="..." or style="...".

Lars Trieloff