W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Validate against

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:50:12 -0500
Message-ID: <39C26154.3428AB36@w3.org>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
CC: www-html-editor@w3.org
Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> Dan,
> 
> > Message-ID: <38A32CDC.FE677FD1@w3.org>
> > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:25:48 -0600
> > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> > To: www-html-editor@w3.org
> > Subject: "validate against"???
> >
> > regarding:
> >
> > "2.1. Document Conformance
> [snip]
> >   1. It must validate against the DTD found in Appendix B.
> > [...]"
> > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml-basic-20000210
> >
> > What do you mean by "validate against"?
> 
> In an attempt to make this clearer the WG has agreed to change the wording
> to:
> 
> "1. The document must conform to the constraints expressed in Appendix B. "

Hmm... maybe that will work; please elaborate a bit in 
Appendix B about what those constraints are; right now,
the word "constraint" does not occur in appendix B.
Perhaps it's implicit that a DTD expresses constraints,
but a sentence to that effect is in order, I think.

Let's go back to the examples we've discussed...

This is a conforming XML 1.0 document (I just
checked it with rxp):

=========
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
        
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml-basic-20000210/xhtml-basic10.dtd"
[
<!ENTITY % Body.content "(bananas)">
<!ELEMENT bananas ANY>
]>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head><title>conforms?</title>
<meta name="RCSId" content="$Id: body-bananas.html,v 1.1 2000/09/15
17:36:59 connolly Exp $" />
</head>
<body><bananas/></body>
</html>
=========

I'm not sure whether the WG intends that this conforms or not.

Oh! I recall claims that XHTML modularization is already
implemented, since it just uses DTDs, so any validating
XML processor implements XHTML modularization. rxp
	http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~richard/xml-check.html
a validating XML processor, reports that this document
is valid, so am I correct to conclude that it conforms
to the spec?

Do you plan to collect test cases during CR? If so,
please include this one.

If not, would you please include it
(or an analagous example) in the spec as
an example of something that XHTML basic user
agents are expected to deal with?
(indeed, this seems to follow from
"4.If a user agent encounters an element it does not recognize,
it must render the element's content. "
-- 3.2 User Agent Conformance
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#uaconf

cited from
2.2. User Agent Conformance
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml-basic-20000210/#s2.2
).


If it doesn't conform, then please point me to the part
of the spec that explains why not.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 13:52:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:48 GMT