regards:

Where to find tag mapping-table of HTML translated to XHTML1.0

Any positive suggestion is welcome.
thank you
May goodness be with you all

s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw (mike) wrote:
[color=blue]
>regards:
>
>Where to find tag mapping-table of HTML translated to XHTML1.0[/color]

Such a table would be largely pointless.

XHTML 1.0 Transitional contains _all_ the elements and attributes
present in HTML 4.01 Transitional; and XHTML 1.0 Strict contains _all_
the elements and attributes present in HTML 4.01 Strict; (and ditto
for Frameset).

What exactly do you want to know?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw (mike)
writing in news:761727b3.0503100907.534e5479@posting.google.c om:
[color=blue]
> regards:
>
> Where to find tag mapping-table of HTML translated to XHTML1.0
>
>
> Any positive suggestion is welcome.
> thank you
> May goodness be with you all
>[/color]

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

regards:

Such a table would be largely pointless.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

thank you for your patient reply and instructions.^^
In my research group,someone asked me to do it "tag mapping-table"
I have to do that,whether it is pointless or not.:(


The web http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs
I have read the site.

I need more precise diffs.If there exists a "tag mapping-table" of
HTML translated to XHTML1.0
,it is best.

thank you anyway
May goodness be with you all

s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw (mike) wrote:
[color=blue]
>In my research group,someone asked me to do it "tag mapping-table"
>I have to do that,whether it is pointless or not.:([/color]

And did this person specify what a "tag mapping-table" is?
[color=blue]
>I need more precise diffs.If there exists a "tag mapping-table" of
>HTML translated to XHTML1.0 it is best.[/color]

Right, assuming you want your XHTML to be Appendix C compliant
1. go to http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html
2. For every element where the third column (End Tag) contains a F the
mapping is <foo> to <foo />
3. For all other elements:
3a. For all elements with required end tags or with optional end tags
included, the tag mapping is <foo>...</foo> to <foo>...</foo>.
3b. For all elements with optional end tags omitted, the mapping is
<foo>... to <foo>...</foo>
4. In HTML <foo>, <FOO>, <fOo> are all allowed. In XHTML only <foo> is
allowed.

There you go, you've now mapped all HTML tags to XHTML tags. If you
like you can now make an big table that says
<a>...</a> maps to <a>...</a>
<A>...</a> maps to <a>...</a>
<a>...</A> maps to <a>...</a>
<A>...</A> maps to <a>...</a>
But it could get tedious for the longer element names (e.g. <adDreSs>)
so a more generalised approach is better.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>But it could get tedious for the longer element names (e.g. <adDreSs>)
>so a more generalised approach is better.[/color]

The whole thing, as a printout, is funnier though.

I haven't had the pleasure of dropping a box of fanfold music paper in
years 8-)

You are great.
Thank you for your patient reply and instructions.^^


On the net forum,somebody said that
The web http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs is edited by an unexperiend
person who is
not familiar with html4.01 and xhtml1.0.Is the guy's viewpoint the
reasonable?....@@.

thank you all
May goodness be with you all

s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw (mike) wrote:
[color=blue]
> On the net forum,somebody said that
> The web http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs is edited by an
> unexperiend person who is
> not familiar with html4.01 and xhtml1.0.Is the guy's viewpoint the
> reasonable?[/color]

Did the person write under his or her own name? I would not respect
myself if I had written, or even quoted, such accusations without
honestly identifying myself.

The document itself does not specify who edited it, or that section in
particular. The group of authors surely contains great understanding
and expertise on HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. I would find it odd if it
turned out that they allocated the editing work to someone who is less
familiar with the issue.

This being said, it needs to be noted that the section contains errors
and misleading statements. Whoever edited it wasn't careful enough, and
probably tried to be helpful and informative and easy to read to the
extent that the result is in part a mess - and does _not_ contain what
its heading promises but only a partial collection of differences
(together with a non-difference).

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

regards:
thank you =.=
May goodness be with you all =.=

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns961956A5589C8jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31 >...[color=blue]
> s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw (mike) wrote:
>[color=green]
> > On the net forum,somebody said that
> > The web http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs is edited by an
> > unexperiend person who is
> > not familiar with html4.01 and xhtml1.0.Is the guy's viewpoint the
> > reasonable?[/color]
>
> Did the person write under his or her own name? I would not respect
> myself if I had written, or even quoted, such accusations without
> honestly identifying myself.
>
> The document itself does not specify who edited it, or that section in
> particular. The group of authors surely contains great understanding
> and expertise on HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. I would find it odd if it
> turned out that they allocated the editing work to someone who is less
> familiar with the issue.
>
> This being said, it needs to be noted that the section contains errors
> and misleading statements. Whoever edited it wasn't careful enough, and
> probably tried to be helpful and informative and easy to read to the
> extent that the result is in part a mess - and does _not_ contain what
> its heading promises but only a partial collection of differences
> (together with a non-difference).[/color]

Regards:

I claim first.
I don't mean to cause a bad stir on the issue,
and just for academic research purpose.

followings is Andy Dingley's post on the 3th post.
http://groups.google.com.tw/groups?h...%26scoring%3Dd

Thank you all for all your patient reply and instructions.^^
Is the Andy Dingley's viewpoint reasonable?....@@.


thank you all
May goodness be with you all(include Andy Dingley)

Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, mike
<s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw> said:[color=blue]
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns961956A5589C8jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31 >...[color=green]
>> s917124@mail.yzu.edu.tw (mike) wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On the net forum,somebody said that
>>> The web http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs is edited by an
>>> unexperiend person who is
>>> not familiar with html4.01 and xhtml1.0.Is the guy's viewpoint the
>>> reasonable?[/color][/color]
>
> followings is Andy Dingley's post on the 3th post.
> http://groups.google.com.tw/groups?h...%26scoring%3Dd[/color]

All he said was that you didn't provide a URL for the page in question.
I don't see how that has anything at all to do with your previous
comment above.
[color=blue]
> Is the Andy Dingley's viewpoint reasonable?....@@.[/color]

Yes.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au