W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > March 2008

RE: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:06:41 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4D16AA9@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>


Going back to Dom's earlier advice not to test declared validity, I think the value here is to not so much to say:

"You say you're a Ham Sandwich, you're not, and neither are you valid XHTML Basic"

So much as

"You say you're valid XHTML, you are, but unfortunately you're not valid XHTML Basic."

Which I think is worthwhile, although it doesn't reach the minimalist level recommended by Dom.

If we are going to make this change then I suppose that needs to be reflected in mobileOK Basic, and we need to firm up on the idea of "Well Known" DTDs (and their locations) and make that normative, I think.

Either way, the conversation needs to be had on the BP List etc.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com]
> Sent: 11 March 2008 23:26
> To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Cc: Jo Rabin; public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]
> 
> So is the emerging consensus to just ignore validation against the
> stated DTD, if it's something we don't know about? Good, because that
> is how I made it work just now.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >  Le mardi 11 mars 2008 à 21:54 +0000, Jo Rabin a écrit :
> >
> > > So I wonder what the value, really, is of testing against a declared
> DTD? The reason it is there, if I remember correctly, is to deal with
> XHTML-MP. But we do, anyway, so this is perhaps a legacy issue.
> >
> >  I remember having argued that we shouldn't care about
> >  validity-to-declared DTD, but I think the group eventually chose to go
> >  in a different direction...
> >
> >  Do - I told you so - m :)
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 08:06:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 March 2008 08:06:57 GMT