W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > October 2011

RE: Considering the standalone declaration

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:10:27 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA03D47DC0@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 October 13 10:21
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Considering the standalone declaration
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> The XML Processing Model WG is struggling with how exactly to clarify
> the interation of standalone between web browsers, XHTML, XML, and
> common practice.
> 
> We'd like to add this to the agenda for the 19 Oct telcon.
> 
> The minutes of our call of 13 Oct may be informative:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/10/13-minutes
> 
> (Particularly the notes following "Norm: Issue 7; ...")

I am adding this topic to this week's XML Core telcon agenda.

fwiw, Norm, Henry, and I were on the XProc call, so we
are hoping for further input especially from the other
XML Core WG members, and most especially from those who
will not also be at TPAC (Glenn, John, Daniel, Jirka).

<quote-from-xproc-minutes>
Henry: The browsers aren't going to pay attention to the standalone
declaration.
... Unless we change the XML spec to change the default. The problem is
that the default is standalone=no. So if we ask the browsers to change
to make standalone=no an error, we'll break all XHTML. It's a lose-lose
situation.
... The one thing we could imagine doing is to say that there's a
media-type dependent default which is standalone=yes. What we'd be
asking the browsers to do is two things: (1) give an error in the
presence of an explicit standalone=no, and (2) give an error for
non-HTML XML unless there's an explicit standalone=yes

Norm: In 1997, maybe. But today it's just not worth it. We'd be asking
every user serving non-XHTML XML to change.

Henry: So how would Core feel about saying that the XML XHTML5 spec can
default standalone=no
... If we don't do this, then we should have raised an issue on XHTML5
saying that they're not raising an error when XML says they should.

Further discussion, leading to the observation that standalone is a
validity constraint

Paul: I'm happy to have the Core WG say something if it helps make
things work better.
... as long as it doesn't rewrite the XML spec.

Alex: I think the question is, if you look at the combination of our new
document with the smallest profile and the XHTML5 spec, what's the
interpretation of the standalone attribute.
</quote-from-xproc-minutes>

paul
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 13:11:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 October 2011 13:11:07 GMT