W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > February 2007

Re: QA and current state of XML schemas for XHTML?

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:14:07 +0900
Message-Id: <2041B06D-15D8-4D9E-BE65-7AE9576DD348@w3.org>
Cc: <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
To: <alexandre@alapetite.net>

Hi Alexandre,

I have just noticed today your mail in qa-dev, which I had missed  
completely. Sorry for this. I have discovered it because I have seen  
your recent mail on www-html.  The appropriate mailing-list for this  
following mail was www-html-editor and www-qa. Anyway.

Olivier (W3C), who is in charge of W3C validators, shared some  
similar concerns with you.

Le 30 juil. 2006 à 10:09, Alexandre Alapetite a écrit :
> As an author of a very small validation prototype, I have been  
> expecting an update of XHTML Modularization for a long time, in  
> order to correct some long standing errors and issues in XML  
> Schemas for the various versions of XHTML.

This mailing list (public-qa-dev) would be perfectly appropriate to  
share a bit more about your validation prototype. Strategies you have  
used for validation, what are your issues, etc. We all share the same  
concerns and putting our resources in common for developing code and/ 
or understanding analyzing the problems is fruitful for the  
validators community.

> Indeed, I believe that DTD-based validators are not good enough,  
> and while XML Schema is maybe not (yet?) perfect, it is already a  
> good improvement.

Yes and we are moving forward our architecture toward this goal as well.


> I take the chance to vote for a reasonable bug tracking system,  
> easily accessible for the public with a direct link from the  
> recommendations, as well as a way to submit some patches, to be  
> reviewed and applied within reasonable time.
> [http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/] and [http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/ 
> voyager-issues/] are good, but hard to find, to browse, and could  
> be more up to date.

We do not have any controls on Aptest, but on the W3C Instance of  
Bugzilla. Would you mind sharing with us, how we could improve the  
visibility of it. Note that the W3C Bugzilla is used, in addition of  
others things, to track Markup Validator bugs.

> Indeed, here is just one final example of frustration
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2001OctDec/ 
> 1246.html]: it took more than 4 (four) years for a major known  
> error in the official XHTML Basic 1.0 DTD to be addressed (the  
> problematic module "XHTML Base Architecture" was then simply   
> removed...).

The charters of the HTML WG are in the process of being discussed and  
reorganized.  The frustration has been raised on different venues and  
acknowledged.[1] Hopefully, there will be changes on this front soon.

[1] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 02:14:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:47 GMT