W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Modularization question

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:06:31 +0200 (EET)
To: "patomas ." <patomas@hotmail.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601131252010.8204@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, patomas . wrote:

>    Some time ago, i was making some tests and a document with this DTD was 
> registered as a valid document:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus Target 1.0//EN" 
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">

That would be odd. When did W3C announce such a formal public identifier?

As far as I've understood XML specs correctly, a processor may ignore the 
FPI and use the URL, which here means using the XHTML 1.1 document type 
definition.

>    Now, i was checking the same old document and the w3c validator reports 
> it as invalid.

When I tried to validate a simple document with such a DOCTYPE 
declaration, using direct input option, the validator indeed says

This page is not Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus Target 1.0//EN!

which is absurd. The validator does not actually use a document type 
definition with that FPI (it does not exist), yet it echoes it here.
This has been discussed previously. The validator _should_ say that the 
page is valid or is not valued. Well, it could add "as an SGML document" 
or "as an XML document", but nothing more.

>    Ther is no way thru modularization to validate frames, targets and 
> similar things?

In practical authoring, modularization and XHTML are mostly exercises in 
futility; frames and targets are worse. Combining the two looks 
undescribably pointless to me.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 11:25:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:05 GMT