Re: possible text on validation

Second attempt:


Jeremy Carroll wrote:

 > I'll follow up, with a shorter version (less explanation) and see what
 > people think.

 > After the following text in
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-grddl-20070302/#txforms
 > [[
 > Therefore, it is suggested that GRDDL transformations
 > be written so that they perform all expected pre-processing, including
 > processing of related DTDs, Schemas and namespaces.  Such measure can
 > be avoided for documents which do not require such pre-processing to
 > yield an infoset that is faithful. That is, for documents which do not
 > reference XInclude, DTDs, XML Schemas and so on.</p>
 > ]]
 >
 > I suggest the following:

[[
<p>
Document authors, particularly XHTML document authors,
wishing their documents to be used unambiguously with GRDDL, are 
encouraged to avoid dependencies on an external <a 
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#dt-doctype"
 >DTD subset</a> (see <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#sec-prolog-dtd">
section 2.8</a> of [<a class="norm" href="#XML">XML</a>]);
specifically:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
To always explicitly include the XHTML namespace in an XHTML document,
or an appropriate namespace in an XML document.
</li>
<li>
To avoid use of entity references, except those listed
in <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#sec-predefined-ent">
section 4.6</a> of [<a class="norm" href="#XML">XML</a>]
</li>
<li>
And, more generally, to
follow the rules
listed for <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#vc-check-rmd">
the standalone document</a> validity constraint.
</li>
</ul>
]]


Hmmmm,
I think that's better than the earlier essay!

Jeremy

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England