W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2000

Re: XHTML Invalidity / WML2 / New XHTML 1.1 Attribute

From: Cavre <cavre@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:04:57 -0400
Message-ID: <200008121104570380.004B437A@smtp.mindspring.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

***********Bertilo Wennergren ***********

On 8/12/00 at 1:15 PM Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
<snip>
</snip>
> Having a util:comment attribute, however, is not the
> same as having a comment attribute, unless the Schema
> was universally recognised. Maybe the W3C should come
> up with a library of Schema for people to use? (Such
> as the one you kindly prepared for us).

>All we need is a validator that allows for mixing of vocabularies.

I hope I am not reading more into this than what your truly saying.
Mixing vocabularies is a very BAD idea.  If you send me a document
with SMGL, XHTML, XML, HTML, and your own markup even given a
DTD it would be nearly (but not impossible) to validate all this markup
correctly.  

No we need to agree upon a common vocabulary and if we need 
additional markup then we need to agree to use XML or XHTML
with modules with a modified DTD that does validate only those
documents that meet our needs.

I do however agree that I need the option to include include several
different markups within one document to be used by various agents.
For example - 

<SMGL>
          <comment>This would only be displayed on my intranet.</comment>
</SMGL>
<XHTML>
           <icomment>This would only be displayed by agents with a approved
             DTD. In other words validating correctly and ignored by all others
           </icomment>
</XHTML>
<HTML>
           <p>This would be displayed upon all devices able to handle HTML</p>
</HTML>
<WML>
           <p>This would only be seen upon wireless devices.</p>
</WML>  

etc........

In this manner all additional markup would be ignored by any validator and 
parser if the parser or validator does not understand the vocabulary in question.

Also what if I am talking about Washington.  Am I talking about a person, a state,
a city, a football team? Unless you know what vocabulary I am using your validator
would report a error or ignore entirely my <Washington> markup.  How would you
tell the validator what is the correct vocabulary to use if your mixing up many different
vocabularies together.  And if my <Washington> markup is valid in two or more
different vocabularies how do you propose we figure out which one is truly valid.
Remember both are equally true and could apply.
Received on Saturday, 12 August 2000 11:06:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT