W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 2002

suggested modification to 3.1.1, XHTML 1.0

From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:14:26 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20020322.131426.07645666.mimasa@w3.org>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: wspsc@webstandards.org

Hello -

I'd like to request that the sample DOCTYPE declarations in XHTML 1.0,
section 3.1.1, shown here:

<!DOCTYPE html 
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
     "DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<!DOCTYPE html 
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
     "DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<!DOCTYPE html 
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN"
     "DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">

be changed to use a fully qualified URI appropriate to the actual
position of the DTD on the W3C site, a la:

<!DOCTYPE html 
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<!DOCTYPE html 
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<!DOCTYPE html 
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">

I realize that the text immediately preceding the examples reads

 "The system identifier may be changed to reflect local system conventions."

but we've seen a great deal of adoption of exactly the syntax shown in
the former example by HTML authoring tools vendors, who don't seem to
realize that the example given is merely an example, and is only valid
for the document in which it is contained. We'd like to encourage
these vendors to use a fully qualified URI, and possibly even include
a copy of the appropriate DTD in their software (perhaps copied
automatically to the site on publication of the site or document).

The example on your site, however, suggests that the relative form is
canonical, and has thus been adopted widely as such. Changing the 
example in the Recommendation could alleviate some of this confusion.

Barring that, could you please add a note clarifying that the relative
URI form shown is only valid for the XHTML Rec, and perhaps suggesting
an alternate format for vendors and authors to use, now that browsers
are treating system identifiers more seriously?

Thanks for your attention,
Steven Champeon

Steering Committee, 
The Web Standards Project

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 23:14:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:44 UTC