W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2010

[Bug 11064] unstated requirement to be valid.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:15:02 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P6l3m-0002Po-Rl@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #2 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> 2010-10-15 14:15:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> No, the requirement is for the document to be valid HTML5,

well it doesn't say that (as clearly as I'd like) either.

>  but that doesn't involve a DTD.

No particular preference to DTD here I just wrote "DTD" out of habit.
A RelaxNG schema would do the job as well. Anything that can check the xml side
of the equation mechanically.

> I'd object to defining any HTML WG deliverable in terms of DTD-validity for
> reasons stated in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0799.html

As I say, RelaxNG is probably better than DTD for this anyway. But for many of
the requirements given as requirements for "polyglot" documents, even just a
non validating xml parser would suffice. The requirement that <!DOCTYPE be
uppercase (section 4) or that attribute values be surrounded by quotes (section
7) are just a requirement that the document be well formed XML.

It seems to me that the interesting part of this spec ought to be the _extra_
requirements (to get compatible DOM) that a document needs to have given that
it is valid according to the html spec and (say) valid XML according to some
specified RelaxNG schema.

Even things like the white space in <pre> rules in section 6.5 could be put in
a Relax Schema

which leaves (I think) more or less, just  extra rules about where you can use
/> syntax and special cases for <script> and (if you use relax rather than DTD)
restrictions on the use of namespace declarations and prefixes that would not
be visible at the RelaxNG layer.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 14:15:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:59 UTC