W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Valid XML

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:04:12 -0400
Message-Id: <1891FAD7-8B06-4D4F-8777-0D8E0C7424B9@w3.org>
To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>

Le 05-05-20 à 04:36, Jim Ley a écrit :
> Not mine, it hands it off to an XHTML 1.1 user agent, but that's  
> irrelevant - the issue is that I do not believe that IE is an XHTML  
> 1.0 user agent, I can find no such claims by the creators that it  
> is one, and It does not render trivial XHTML 1.0 documents, for  
> example it can't even render this:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http:// 
> www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
> <script src="thing.src" type="text/javascript"/>
> <title>Chickens!</title>
> <body>
> <h1>Chickens</h1>
> </body>
> </html>

I don't have Windows IE (any version). Does it fail or succeed to  
render this? If yes I guess a bug report should be sent. For the  
other case too.

<html lang="en">
<script src="thing.src" type="text/javascript"/>

> As to "compatible" XHTML, I use inline style sheets too often for  
> that, and I can't do that with Appendix C. (C.1 and C.14 cannot  
> both be fulfilled) as well as the fact that I can no longer use any  
> XML tools to generate the content, and I'm relying on undefined  
> error handling in user agents.  I can have no confidence that  
> future user agents won't recover from those errors in a similar way.

* About C.1

When do you need to put XML PI ?
Usually it's when you don't encode as UTF-8, but I would recommend  
people to encode their document in HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 in  
UTF-8 :) less problems at least for my practical experience.
Do you use it for something else?

* About C.14

Why do you need this with "XHTML 1.0" served as text/html?

>> Also...the strength of XHTML lies in the ability it gives
>> developer to mix other technologies (such as MathML) into the
>> same document and to do things like extending the spec with your
>> own DTDs.
> This would not be possible with "compatible" XHTML 1.0 though  
> anyway, so what's the point if the only power is something that not  
> even anyone here feels they can use?

It depends on the usage. You can use a "own-tailored" document for  
internal use, and produce a document that will be suitable for  
online. Usually I tend to do that by managing my own document in a  
certain way and applying XSLT before to put them on a server.

Indeed for now the implementation with mixed namespaces or extended  
DTDs like MathML are not supported by some user agents.  Life is not  
perfect indeed. I hope it will be improved in the future. It's one of  
the goal of the CDF WG.

     A Compound Document is the W3C term for a document that combines  
multiple formats, such as XHTML, SVG, SMIL and XForms. The W3C  
Compound Document Formats (CDF) Working Group will specify the  
behaviour of some format combinations, addressing the needs for an  
extensible and interoperable Web.
     ]]] - http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 18:04:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:19 UTC