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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:37:31 -0500
To: ogbujic@ccf.org
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1177353451.9528.81.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:08 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:45 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > What _do_ the implementations check or depend on?
> > MIME type, XML-wf-ness, and root element namespace?
> GRDDL.py (in its current form) only checks for XML-wf-ness and
> successful evaluation of the (unambiguous) XPaths outlined in the
> specification.

There are no XPaths in the relevant section.

Oh... wait... yes there are... though only in the informative
mechanical rules...

I think those rules match, for example, XHTML inside Atom;
even inside an Atom document that says "The following
XHTML is false/fictuional/counter-factual..."

> > If so, I'd specify something like this...
> > 
> >   If an information resource has a text/html representation
> >   whose body is an XML document whose root element
> >   bears the local name 'html' and the
> >   namespace name 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml', then ...
> > 
> +1 On this 

That quick sketch excludes the following mime types:

I think that's not a good way to specify it... but I do think
the media type has to specify XML... i.e. text/plain is no good.

> However, my original question remains: does our dependency on XHTML
> clash with the faithful infoset 'stance'?

No. (i.e. not as far as I can tell.)

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 18:37:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:11 UTC