text: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
  > Very interesting, really very interesting.
  > I like the concept a lot; if we can put in semantical stuff and leave
  > out the presentational tags, I'm in favor of it.
  >
  > To our DTD experts, what do you think, is it a viable thing to do?
  Technically possible, yes. Viable, maybe: given the amount of
  pseudo-attributes and elements that we would want to be skipped in our
  own DTDs, I'm not so sure whether I'd be volunteering for this task...
  From my personal experience with XHTML modularization, it is still
  quite a venture to re-use only little bits and pieces: it has been
  designed in such a way that it is more easy to throw away element/attr
  categories from the XHTML namespace, i.e. eradicating <form>-like
  elements in your XHTML derivate if you want to. Just including e.g. the
  XHTML <table> element inside your own DTD is already quite a task.
  But that is IMO.
  I'd like to see Joerg's idea about this.
  This is not a +1/-1: I'm willing and able to go in both directions, if
  that direction is heading forwards :-)
  </Steven>
  --
  Steven Noels
  Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
  stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org