W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Invalid XHTML Re: Another test suggesting change in the spec

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:13:06 +0100
Message-ID: <462CDB12.2070909@hpl.hp.com>
To: ogbujic@ccf.org
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Thank you, Chime, we are on the same page.

Certainly, my revised text was intended to have a possible precise 
reading, to avoid trying to specify the unspecifiable.
I am also not wedded to us normatively specifying what should be done 
with such docs.
But currently our implementations do not in general check for DTD 
validity, yet formally they should since the rel="transformation" thing 
is only defined for DTD valid docs.

How about,

[[
While these mechanisms are intended primarily
for valid XHTML family documents, they also
may be used with other appropriate documents.
For example, those from which a valid XHTML family
document can be derived, by
deleting all namespace qualified attributes.
]]

as informative rather than normative text

Jeremy


Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:48 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:13 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> A modification to my previous suggested text
>>>
>>> [[
>>> While these mechanisms are intended primarily
>>> for valid XHTML family documents, they also
>>> may be used with invalid XHTML family documents,
>>> particularly those that would be valid
>>> upon deletion of all namespace qualified attributes.
>>> ]]
>> What do you mean by "invalid XHTML family documents"?
>> There is no such thing, as far as I know. All the
>> current XHTML specs use DTDs to say what an XHTML document
>> is, I think.
> 
> I don't want to answer for Jeremy, but I'm assuming he meant well-formed
> XML documents (*not* tag soup) which differ from 'valid' XHTML (per DTD)
> primarily via the use of namespace declarations (the most common case). 
> 
> I think it would be a *serious* mistake for GRDDL to exclude this family
> of documents (even implicitly) or to allow an interpretation that
> suggests such an exclusion.  This is mostly a matter of clarification
> IMHO as (by virtue of the normative sections being declared in XPath)
> this is clearly not the case (however, the use of the 'valid' XHTML
> qualifier seems counter-intuitive).  
> 
> I.e., a GRDDL-aware agent which comes across XHTML which is invalid WRT
> to one of the 'sanctioned' DTDs will still compute GRDDL results.  So,
> 'validity' would seem to be of no consequence.
> 
> John's suggestion [1] about an interpretation of validity that permits
> this is very relevant to this point.
> 
> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/0109.html
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 16:13:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT