W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > December 2011

RE: HTML/XML TF Report republished

From: Robert Leif <rleif@rleif.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:02:40 -0800
To: "'Norman Walsh'" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, <public-html-xml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05f201ccc0d3$e57ba5a0$b072f0e0$@rleif.com>
Norm et al.

This document needs one simple change, it should be limited to HTML5. It has
been possible with oXygen to validate html5 based XML applications against a
RELAX NG XML schema. Unfortunately, I could not validate this xhtml5 page
with other namespaces imported. Modifications of the schema hopefully would
solve this and, if need be, other problems. It also should be possible to
have schemas in XSD1.1 ignore elements in an xhtml5 namespace. However since
I do not have a truly working example, it would be inappropriate to claim
that there is a solution. I believe that it would be appropriate to include
a simple disclaimer, such as: 

Since to the best of our knowledge, an XHTML5 implementation based on an XML
schema has not been demonstrated as a solution to the problem of HTML/XML
interoperability, there will be no further discussion of this approach.

This would provide an opportunity for the schema tool vendors to develop a
solution, which I would like to use and believe that the vendors will be
well financially compensated for their efforts.

Yours truly,

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.


-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:14 AM
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: HTML/XML TF Report republished


Hello folks,


Apoligies for the long delay. Last time we worked on the report, I believe
that I was pushing for some sort of official publication. What followed were
some editorial suggestions, but no dissent in attempting to get an official


Robin took an action to propose some text about friction and
cross-pollination, which he did[1]. There was some pushback and I don't
think we can say that there was TF consensus to add them.


I've reviewed all the mail going back three months and (unless I overlooked
something) I don't see any outstanding issues.


I've republished the draft unchanged except for the publication date and
removal of change markup:




I propose that we ask the TAG to publish this draft officially.


Noah, for the purpose of the January TAG f2f, I suggest that this is the
draft that should be discussed.


                                        Be seeing you,



[1]  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Oct/0006.html>



Norman Walsh

Lead Engineer

MarkLogic Corporation

Phone: +1 413 624 6676

 <http://www.marklogic.com> www.marklogic.com
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:28 UTC