W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ISSUE-59: normative-language-reference FPWD

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:22:14 +0900
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090126232211.GC2878@sideshowbarker>

Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, 2009-01-23 15:47 +0100:

>  [...] If the schema were made normative, it would be possible
>  to dance around it being to One True Schema. For instance, it
>  could be defined as baseline validation, indicating that no
>  validator can be conformant if it accepts something that the
>  schema rejects;

Exactly.

> but a validator would be allowed in being stricter.

The "HTML 5: The Markup Language" draft already takes the approach
stating stricter requirements where needed. It doesn't confine its
definition of "conformant document" to only what can be expressed
in the content-model sections. It contains other sections that
state additional constraints; for example:


  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#noscript-constraints
  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#meta.charset-constraints
  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#meta.name-constraints
  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#meta.http-equiv.content-type-constraints

There are quite a few more of those that I still need to add, but
they'll all get added eventually.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 23:22:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT