Re: Does XSD/RNG Based RDF in XHTML need a new FPI?

Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> wrote:

> On Friday 04 July 2003 06:51, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
> > XHTML+CC, but defining XHTML+RDF is like defining XHTML+arbitraryXML.
> 
> Yes, exactly. So what is necessary in this case?

Well-formedness, at the very least.

> You had mentioned this 
> might be considered a "not-so-strictly" conforming XHTML document.

And I said at the moment there's no defined conformance for that,
unfortunately.

> > You cannot claim it's
> > XHTML 1.0 Transitional document type (which is a specific XHTML Family
> > member with fixed set of elements and attributes).
> 
> I've been trying to follow this [1] thread, and [2], but I'm still not sure 
> if this concept of "not-so-strictly" is a red-herring I'm chasing, nor how 
> to properly identify a "not-so-strictly" document of XHTML+arbtraryXML.

Again, there's no defined conformance for that (yet).

	       <snip/>
> Ok, so what do we rely upon so that a 
> XML document can properly identify itself for validation?

That's why the HTML WG is discussing how to identify the "type of
a document" in a schema language independent way, and how to identify
appropriate schema(s).

> That seems to be 
> specific to what you mean by validation. In this Schema case, there's the 
> schemaLocation stuff. However, these attributes are not permitted in XHTML 
> and you noted that's not likely [4] to happen any time soon?

schemaLocation is just a hint.  There's no guarantee that XML Schema
processors would use it.  And we need a solution not specific to XML
Schema.  Unlike DTD validation, an instance may be a valid instance
of multiple schemata, and different schema may check different aspects
of validity, and different kinds of schema languages may be applied
concurrently.  For example, the following NRL schemata will perform
XML Schema, RELAX NG and Schematron validations concurrently to take
advantage of different features in different schema languages.  One
schema is not enough.

    http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/schemas/nrl/xhtml1-strict.nrl
    http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/schemas/nrl/xhtml1-transitional.nrl
    http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/schemas/nrl/xhtml1-frameset.nrl

> Now, there's NRL. I've never had an expectation that one could or should 
> address the semantics of composing/mixing XML1.0 .

That's why I've been consciously limiting my involvement in this
task force to syntax issue only.

> But I 
> did hope that one could have the syntax be self-identifying and 
> validatable. NRL seems to put an end to that argument.

Well, nearly.  We need to observe how DSDL Part 4 would end up.

> Ok, so sorry for the rambling, but to put a point on my question, could you 
> point me to a proper instance that you think conforms to your [3]. Does [a] 
> without the DOCTYPE qualify?

Yes.  [a] is a valid instance of [3].  That doesn't necessarily guarantee
that [a] is conforming to any of XHTML specifications.

> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Oct/0232.html
> [2]http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml-m12n-schema-20021209/schema-modules.html#sec_3.3.
> [3]http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/schemas/SCHEMA/xhtml1-loose.xsd
> [4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Oct/0234.html
> [5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2003Jul/0005.html
> [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2003Jul/0005.html
> [a]http://www.w3.org/2003/06/xhtml-rdf/test-cc.html

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 12:12:32 UTC