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

RE: VALID_MARKUP local DTD catalog

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:19:06 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B43362A4@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Ruadhan O'Donoghue" <rodonoghue@mtld.mobi>, <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
Good point.

 

The test is "If the document is an HTML document and it fails to
validate according to its given DOCTYPE , FAIL" 

So we need a reasonable catalogue of known html and html dtds. We don't
need any non-html dtds and I agree that we should not go fetch random
dtds.

 

Jo

________________________________

From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ruadhan
O'Donoghue
Sent: 29 May 2007 11:11
To: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
Subject: VALID_MARKUP local DTD catalog

 

Hi,

 

I'm not sure if anyone has been looking at this, but for validating the
original document, we are going to need a local catalog of DTDs. In
ready.mobi we use the Xerces CatalogResolver class to map between
DOCTYPEs and local copies of the DTDs.

 

 

Any thoughts on the following?

 

(1) We need to validate the document against its stated DOCTYPE and
XHTML Basic 1.1 (and maybe 1.2). So the set of DTDs that we wish to
store locally should include

XHTML Basic*, MP*, HTML* 

 

Are there others? And do we store variations like the Openwave XHTML
DTDs which turn up quite a bit? Perhaps we should compile an exhaustive
list of the DOCTYPES that we will recognise.

 

 

(2) The behaviour when a DOCTYPE specifies an obscure DTD not in the
catalog - fetching a DTD from the wild is not a good idea, so we should
just report an "unrecognised DOCTYPE - will not try to validate"
error... Is this the desired behaviour?

 

 

Ruadhan
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 10:19:35 GMT

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