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

RE: HTML/XML TF report introductory text

From: Robert Leif <rleif@rleif.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:10:32 -0700
To: "'Robin Berjon'" <robin@berjon.com>, <liam@w3.org>
Cc: <public-html-xml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015d01cc900b$f6bf8b90$e43ea2b0$@rleif.com>
Robin et al.
I used the DTD because that is what has been specified for HTML5 and XHTML5.
Since I dislike DTDs, I will gleefully change my code to whatever you
suggest as a replacement. I am constrained by what XMLSpy and, I believe in
the near future, oXygen will accept. Since FDA is starting to require that
some medical software is to be class II, schemas and XML will have to
validated. I will also note that I make mistakes and validation provides me
with some, but not total, confidence that what I create will be reliable.
The SVG in the html5 example provided by XMLSpy caused a validation error,
but did work with the browser. 
Although creating a complete solution certainly is beyond the scope of our
group, suggesting one or more approaches is in reasonable compliance. It
appears that a reasonable first step is to find or specify the first line or
two of code.
If anyone knows how to make the value specified in my form show up in the
XML page, I would greatly appreciate the help.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:20 AM
To: liam@w3.org
Cc: rleif@rleif.com; public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML/XML TF report introductory text

On Oct 21, 2011, at 07:59 , Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 07:46 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2011, at 06:49 , Robert Leif wrote:
>>> The only acceptable attribute value for xmlns is <html 
>>> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>>> I believe that this demonstrates that there is a problem with namespace
declarations.
>> 
>> No, I'm pretty sure that just demonstrates why DTDs should either be 
>> updated or disposed of :) But that's the job for another group.
> 
> There have been several proposals over the years for updating DTDs, 
> with varying levels of obscure or arcane syntax.  But none of the 
> proposals seems to have clear benefits over W3C XSD, or even over RNG, 
> and the cost of changing DTDs could potentially be very high in terms 
> of interoperability.
> 
> I don't see that changing as a result of HTML 5.

Neither do I, hence the smiley :)

> On the other hand, DTDs are the only way (today) to declare text 
> entities, and are useful for simple syntax checking, so I also don't 
> see them going away any time soon.

Right, but if we were to do XML5 or something like that I would expect all
the common text entities to be predefined and for DTDs to go.

Either way, without looking at the code I'm pretty sure that Robert's error
comes from using a DTD. Other schema languages are generally pretty bad at
distributed extensibility, but not quite that bad.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 16:11:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 October 2011 16:11:13 GMT