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

Re: Semantic versus Structure for XHTML 2.0

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:51:01 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20030526.145101.41643405.mimasa@w3.org>
To: www-html@w3.org

[ personal opinion ]

Joris Huizer <joris_huizer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de> wrote:
> > A better approach in _X_HTML (IMHO) would be the
> > usage of elements from 
> > a special namespace for an address vocabulary:
> > 
> > <p><foo:address">
> > <l><foo:person>Haruki Murakami</foo:person></l>
> > <l><foo:street>Omote-Sando</foo:street></l>
> > <l><foo:city>    Tokyo</foo:city></l>
> > </foo:address></p>
> > 
> > This of course would not be a fragment of a valid
> > XHTML 2.0 document. 
> > But XHTML is meant to be extended like this, isn't
> > it?
> 
> Mayb it's me, but why isn't this valid - you're using
> a xml feature here - are you saying this isn't allowed
> or something ?

Because of an extra " after foo:address - it's not well-formed.

Seriously, it depends on how you define the term "valid".  The XHTML 2.0
spec doesn't define that term (yet), and consciously avoided that term
in the conformance definition.  If you stick to the XML 1.0 definition
of "valid" [1], the above fragment is likely to be "invalid", but 
a schema can be written to allow or disallow such usage (I have both
schemata).  In other words, the same instance may be a valid instance
of schema A but at the same time an invalid instance of schema B, and
IMHO both schemata would be useful in different context.  The conformance
definition would need complete rewrite at some point.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#dt-valid

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 01:51:03 GMT

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