- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:02:57 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: www-html-editor@w3.org
I haven't checked the W3C markup validation service, but I'm pretty sure it already uses a local copy of the DTDs. The W3C mobileOK Checker also uses a local catalog but the mapping is "simple": it merely converts well-known prefixes to local folders. For instance, the URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic11.dtd ... gets mapped to: www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic11.dtd ... in the local filesystem. That's the easiest way to maintain a local catalog and I would expect most developers to use similar rules. The hierarchy is preserved and the broken link remains when you do that. Note that I already fixed the local DTDs used by the mobileOK Checker: what's at stake here is not our validation tools). I take your point ref the difficulty to update something in /TR space, I'm sure we'll find a way. There should not be any need to do that more than once in the spec's lifetime. Well, in theory that is ;) Francois. On 01/03/2011 06:46 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > Well... I meant 2. A validating parser is permitted to have a local catalog in which DOCTYPES are mapped to alternate locations, and I would certainly recommend that any validating parser have local versions of these DTDs and use them rather than beating on the W3C servers all the time. > > Regardless, you are of course correct that the versions in /TR space should be corrected. But this is VERY HARD TO DO at the W3C. So, for the nonce, is there a way you can get the W3C validator to look in /MarkUp/DTD for the XHTML family Document Types that were defined by the XHTML2 working group? > > On 1/3/2011 11:25 AM, Francois Daoust wrote: >> On 01/03/2011 05:28 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: >>> My recommendation is that you use the versions at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD - these versions work and will be maintained. There shouldn't even be a version in TR space. I thought I had ripped those out for the new release. >> >> Your comment may be read two ways: >> >> 1. use the version of the "xhtml-datatypes-1.mod" module in /MarkUp/DTD. I incorrectly referred to /TR/Markup/xhtml-datatypes-1.mod (which does not even exist) in my message, that was a typo, sorry for the confusion. The suggested correction does use the version in /MarkUp/DTD, indeed. >> >> 2. use the versions of the XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Basic 1.1 DTDs that appear in /MarkUp/DTD. That's not really possible since the DOCTYPE listed in the conformance section of these specs refers to, e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic11.dtd for XHTML Basic 1.1. A validating XML parser would de facto use that URI to retrieve the DTDs. >> >> Francois. >> >> >> >>> >>> On 12/13/2010 11:29 AM, Francois Daoust wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The XHTML Basic 1.1 [1] and XHTML 1.1 [2] DTDs were recently published with a link to the "xhtml-datatypes-1.mod" module. This module is defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/Markup/xhtml-datatypes-1.mod but the link that appears in the DTDs targets the folder in which the DTD is defined, resulting in a broken link. >>>> >>>> >>>> Extract from one of the DTD (same problem in both): >>>> == >>>> <!ENTITY % xhtml-datatypes.mod >>>> PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Datatypes 1.0//EN" >>>> "xhtml-datatypes-1.mod" > >>>> == >>>> >>>> >>>> Corrected extract: >>>> == >>>> <!ENTITY % xhtml-datatypes.mod >>>> PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML Datatypes 1.0//EN" >>>> "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-datatypes-1.mod" > >>>> == >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Francois. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/DTD/xhtml-basic11.dtd >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd >>> >
Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 19:03:26 UTC