W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2006

Inconsistencies between the latest XHTML 2.0 WG and its RELAX NG schema

From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:40:51 +0200
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Message-Id: <1155544851.5899.26.camel@localhost>

There appears to be some inconsistencies between
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/ elements list and the
RELAX NG schema in http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/xhtml2.zip.

1) The q element (text module) is mentioned in the WD but isn't defined
in the schema.

2) These elements are defined in the schema but not in the WD elements

      * quote (text module)
      * all the ruby module sub elements (rb, rbc, rp, rtc and rt) are
        missing from the list of elements.
      * the different levels of headers (h1...h6) are defined as
        "headers" in the list of elements. It would be clearer if they
        were individually mentioned.
      * all the XForms sub elements (label, instance, submission, bind,
        hint, help, label, extension, choices, value, item, itemset,
        copy, filename, mediatype, toggle, case) defined in the W3C XML
        Schema schema for XForms 1.0 are also missing from the elements

Even if the list is marked as informative, people will use it to find
out what a XHTML 2.0 element means and I think that it should be as
exhaustive as possible!

Furthermore, xhtml2.rng contains a reference to "xforms-nons-11.rng"
which is not included in the archive.

GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Don't you think all these XML schema languages should work together?
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema

Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 08:41:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:55 UTC