W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Validation Specification

From: Benjamin C. Chang <Ben.Chang@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:06:13 -0800
Message-ID: <3E3AC925.2EF7CD0@oracle.com>
To: Ron Ausbrooks <ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com>, "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>, "'w3c-math-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-math-wg@w3.org>

Since we have not heard otherwise, we are assuming that you
have no objections to our resolution.

Thx,
Ben

"Benjamin C. Chang" wrote:

> We considered your proposal.  We decided against incorporating
> it into the validation spec; however, if groups such as yours wish
> to add such extensions on their own, that would be ok.  We will
> add documentation to that effect.
>
> Please let us know if you are satisfied (or not) with the resolution.
>
> Thx,
> Ben
>
> Ron Ausbrooks wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The Math Working Group has reviewed the DOM Level 3 Validation
> > Specification, and we have no objections to it.
> >
> > However, we'd like to inquire about the possibility of more stringent
> > validation for particular XML dialects. In some cases notably MathML and
> > HTML) there are restrictions in the recommendations which aren't codifiable
> > in a DTD or W3C XML Schema. Do you feel that it would be appropriate for us
> > to define an extension of the NodeEditVAL interface for the MathML DOM,
> > adding a new CheckTypeVAL constant so that validation would include these
> > non-codifiable restrictions? (This would be named something like
> > "MATHML_STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK", and would of necessity includes
> > STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK.) A feature string such as "MATHML-VAL-DOC" would be
> > needed as well. Or do you see this as exceeding the mandate of validation?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Ron Ausbrooks
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 14:09:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:56 GMT