W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Using RELAX NG in XHTML 2.0

From: Karl Ove Hufthammer <karl@huftis.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 23:19:07 +0200
Message-Id: <n2m-g.Xns937AED353B536huftis@ID-99504.news.dfncis.de>
To: www-html@w3.org

Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com> wrote in
news:3EC0EB89.5060105@netscape.com:

> Second, if XHTML 2.0 is made a little bit for the Web (yeah, I
> mean for browsing), what matters is DTD and Schema, not RELAX
> NG.

Why? I see no reason DTDs and XML Schema are better suited for the
task of validating documents. DTDs are certainly much worse.

Actually, I see no reason we would even need a DTD for XHTML 2
when there are much better alternatives available.

> Sorry but I don't see browsers implement that any time
> soon.

Well, I used to think validating was an important feature for
browsers, but I'm not so sure anymore. Validating is really a
*tool* for *authors* to ensure that they produce high-quality
documents / technically 'correct' documents / documents that
'make sense'. This doesn't *need* to be implemented in browsers.
(Though a iCab style validator would be nice.) And for this
purpose, RELAX NG or XML Schema is much better suited.

The HTML/XHTML recommendations have many requirements for what a
'correct' HTML/XHTML document must look like. *Some* of these are
expressible as a DTD (or DOCTYPE declaration, to be precise). Even
more are expressible in XML Schema or a RELAX NG. Thus these
schema languages are better suited as means to specifiy
syntactically constraints on XHTML 2 documents.

SGML/XML DOCTYPE declarations should be allowed to die.

> Again, browsers use DTD or Schemas, not RELAX NG.

Not any that I know of. Which ones are you thinking of?

-- 
Karl Ove Hufthammer
http://blogg.huftis.org/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 17:19:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT