W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > January 2009

Re: XML Version and our recommendations

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:10:59 -0600
Message-ID: <498091A3.7000203@aptest.com>
To: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
CC: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, public-xhtml2-request@w3.org

I think the point is that XHTML M12N and derivatives do not have any 
processing rules for anything other than XML 1.0 documents.  If a 
document has an xml declaration of version 1.1, I do not think a 
conforming user agent is required to process it as we have defined.  But 
I could be wrong.... guess I could ask the tag?

Roland Merrick wrote:
> 
> Greetings Shane, I'm not sure that anything else should be added to the 
> PERs but if we did want to add a para I'd suggest that we soften it a 
> little and say SHOULD rather than MUST.
> 
> Regards, Roland
> 
> 
> From: 	Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
> To: 	XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
> Cc: 	Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
> Date: 	26/01/2009 22:02
> Subject: 	XML Version and our recommendations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (copying Benjamin since he is not on our mailing list).
> 
> Benjamin pointed out today that it is likely very difficult for people
> reading our recommendations to know that we require XML 1.0 *only*.  I
> know this, and you all know this (probably), and a standards lawyer
> reading XHTML M12N 1.0 / 1.1 and XHTML whatever might get there, but for
> people writing XHTML documents this is not really explicitly stated
> anywhere.
> 
> This arose because someone went and validated a document that had an xml
> declaration that cited version 1.1.  It validated just fine!  But it
> probably shouldn't.  And at the very least, we should be explicit in our
> conformance clauses that this is not a good thing.
> 
> I proposed the text like the following to Benjamin, and he seemed to
> feel it might help:
> 
>     "Note that all XHTML Family specifications, including this one,
>      are based upon XML 1.0.  Conforming Documents that contain an
>      XML declaration MUST only reference version 1.0 in that XML
>      declaration.  Conforming User Agents MUST support processing
>      as required by XML 1.0."
> 
> With suitable references to the conformance clauses and normative
> references of XHTML M12N 1.1.  Any objections to adding these simple
> statements to our PERs?  They have apparently not been published yet.
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /
> /
> 
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 17:12:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:50 GMT