W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2009

Fwd: XHTML modularization versions and earlier specifications

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:16:57 +0200
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200911012216.57299.ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Hello www-html,

I sent the message below about using newer versions of XHTML modularization 
DTD modules with specifications predating it to public-qa-dev but have not 
received a reply.  Perhaps someone here can shed some light on the issue?

Ville

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: XHTML modularization versions and earlier specifications
Date: Sunday 25 October 2009
From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
To: "public-qa-dev" <public-qa-dev@w3.org>

Hello,

I added XHTML modularization 1.1 modules and entities to the markup validator 
and its catalogs today in CVS.  This improves things as there are a few XHTML 
based specifications that use these modules, and previously there were no 
local copies of these files for general use in the validator, resulting in 
them being fetched from www.w3.org on demand which is not that cool.

I also thought I'd clean up duplicates and "private" versions of these modules 
from validator's DTD dirs of various specifications, but now I have a 
question:

Is it ok to upgrade the modules/entities/etc referred to in some 
specifications to the newest versions of those files, provided that their 
public ids have not changed even if their contents have?

For example, many XHTML Basic 1.0 DTD modules do have same public ids as the 
XHTML modularization 1.1 ones, but many of them have seen some changes since 
XHTML Basic 1.0 was released.  Would it be ok from validation/conformance 
point of view to use the XHTML modularization 1.1 ones nevertheless, or is 
e.g. XHTML Basic 1.0 stuck with the exact versions that were in effect (and 
that are distributed with the XHTML Basic 1.0 DTD) at the time it was 
released?

I *think* it'd be ok to upgrade if the public ids haven't changed, but wanted 
to hear more educated opinions before proceeding further with these changes.  
It'd be a shame if not for catalog and other maintenance reasons.


-------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 20:17:31 GMT

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