W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > July 2007

RE: F2F demo: html / xhtml namespace

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:04:30 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B44841A6@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: Roland Gülle <roland@7val.com>, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "public-mobileok-checker" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

I'm just catching up on this thread:

The reason the mobileOK doc says nothing about the namespace is that Dom said ages ago (and consistently with his previous message on this thread) that the DTD has the value as FIXED. Consequently, failing if the namespace is absent not right. 

The specs all say that the namespace declaration should be present. So I suggest we go back, amend the mobileOK doc, and FAIL if a namespace declaration is not present on the html element. 

Jo




> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roland Gülle
> Sent: 25 July 2007 18:52
> To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Cc: Sean Owen; public-mobileok-checker
> Subject: Re: F2F demo: html / xhtml namespace
> 
> 
> 
> > In terms of the checker, I think this means we should default a root
> > element whose name is "html" and has no defined namespace to be in the
> > XHTML namespace (so that we can parse is as if it was XHTML), while
> > throwing an error to the user - I thought there was a specific error
> > triggered in mobileOK for this, but I don't see it in there in a quick
> > read.
> +1 to your proposed solution and found also nothing about XHTML
> namespaces in the mobileOK basic doc.
> 
>   roland
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 22:04:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:03 GMT