Comments embedded...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:39 AM
> To: Farrell, Lee
> Cc: XP (E-mail)
> Subject: Canon Proposal for XHTML-Print Spec restructuring
>
>
>
>
> I really have a problem with this proposal.
>
> The W3C seems to clearly be in the business of developing a
> base recommendation and then creating profiles (subsets) of
> that base for specific application. I don't see XHTML-Print
> to be any different from that.
I think we agree in principle. Perhaps we're just quibbling about exactly what the "base(s)" should be?
> For example, a quick scan
> of the W3C site finds:
>
> CSS Mobile Profile 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/)
> CSS TV Profile 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/css-tv)
> An XHTML + MathML + SVG Profile
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/)
> XHTML+SMIL Profile (http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusSMIL/)
> XHTML+Voice Profile 1.0(http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml+voice/)
>
> All these profiles are based upon the base documents
> (XHTMLMOD or CSS). Why
> should XHTML-Print be any different? Maybe we should call this:
>
> XHTML-Print: An XTHML + CSS Profile
Or "XHTML-Basic + CSS Mobile + Profile for Print"? This way, the "Profile for Print" could be applied to other XHTML/CSS combinations.
>
> Adding the complexity of using XHTML Basic (built upon
> XHTMLMOD which is built
> on XHTML which is built off HTML4.0) and then building on top
> is really an extra
> step and forces implementors to reference more and more
> documents before being
> able to implement.
>
> Additionally, CSS Mobile is NOT an appropriate starting point
> for CSS because it
> both omits support that we need (e.g., @page,
> page-break-after, etc.) and
Ok, but this is why the proposal listed the page-related styles in the document. This is the "additional style" portion of the base element + base style + additional style + image rotation combination.
> includes things we don't want to mandate (e.g., MUST support
> the "handheld" media type). It would be much clearer and cleaner
> to simply list the properties and property values in the same way
> that CSS Mobile does.
What exactly is required by the phrase, "MUST support the 'handheld'
media type?" Is it any more than just recognizing the names of the
media types listed in the CSS2 spec? Is that really too onerous?
>
> On the subject of image rotation, I have a real problem
> changing HTML/XHTML to
> add rotation as an attribute to <img> or <src> without
> endorsement by the W3C.
> The same issue applies to adding it to CSS.
It is certainly best if we adopt a method for image rotation that is endorsed by the W3C. However, until they do so, there is concern that the currently referenced method of using EXIF App markers is inadequate and inefficient.
>
> I think what we have today which defines the base elements
> and base style and
> then adds the additional style necessary for "Enhanced
> Layout" is very clean.
> If we have to added to the XHTML or the CSS to accomplish
> image rotation then we
> can.
>
> **********************************************
> Don Wright don@lexmark.com
>
> Member, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
> f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
>
> Director, Alliances & Standards
> Lexmark International
> 740 New Circle Rd
> Lexington, Ky 40550
> 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Farrell, Lee"
> <Lee.Farrell%cda.canon.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 05/29/2002
> 04:21:57 PM
>
> To: "XP (E-mail)" <xp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com>
> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: XP> New XHTML-Print Version
>
>
>
> Please find attached an initial proposal draft that is
> intended to follow up on
> the presentation I gave at the last meeting.
>
> Although the draft is not yet complete, the document
> structure and the partial
> content should provide adequate insight into what Canon
> proposes as a change to
> the existing specification. A more complete proposal is
> expected, but I thought
> it was important to give an impression of our intent as soon
> as possible.
>
> [My apologies that the proposal was not published in XHTML format.]
>
> To summarize the highlights,
> 1) The intent is to describe X-P as a composition of 4 components:
> base element
> base style
> additional style
> image rotation
>
> 2) Only the "additional (CSS) styles" are listed in the document.
> The minimum requirement for "base element" and "base style"
> are references to XHTML Basic and CSS Mobile.
>
> 3) We are open to referencing an alternative "base" CSS that the group
> feels is more suited for printing, if it seems appropriate
> (i.e., CSS-Print could be referenced instead of Mobile.) The major
> goal is modularization and reference to W3C-based standards.
>
>
>
> lee
> ===========================
> Lee Farrell
> Canon Development Americas
> 110 Innovation Drive
> Irvine, CA 92612
> (949) 856-7163 - voice
> (949) 856-7510 - fax
> Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com
> ===========================
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 17:46:19 EDT