W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > July 2006

Re: QA and current state of XML schemas for XHTML?

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:12:13 +0900
Message-Id: <44688504-4F04-4030-A17D-83E328D6C4FA@w3.org>
Cc: alexandre@alapetite.net
To: QA IG <www-qa@w3.org>

Bonjour Alexandre,

I have not yet had time to look in details at the issue you point  
out, but I believe it could be of interest to the Quality Assurance  
Interest Group at large, not just the development group, which, as it  
name suggests, mostly takes care of software development.

I am therefore forwarding your message to www-qa, the mailing-list of  
the IG.

Thanks,
olivier

On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:09 , Alexandre Alapetite wrote:

>
> Dear Quality Assurance Dev group,
> As you may know, there is soon a dead-line (4 August) for the call  
> for comments regarding XHTML Modularization 1.1 and XHTML
> Basic 1.1.
>
> As an author of a very small validation prototype, I have been  
> expecting an update of XHTML Modularization for a long time, in
> order to correct some long standing errors and issues in XML  
> Schemas for the various versions of XHTML.
>
> The dead-line is approaching, but 'www-html-editor@w3.org' and 'www- 
> html@w3.org' are still silent regarding those reported
> problems.
>
> Therefore, I am writing to ask your group to _assure_ that the  
> _quality_ of the updated XML Schemas will be optimal.
>
> Indeed, I believe that DTD-based validators are not good enough,  
> and while XML Schema is maybe not (yet?) perfect, it is already
> a good improvement. Therefore, I cannot really understand why those  
> schemas, which should - in my opinion - be the second most
> important deliverable after the specifications, are almost  
> completely forgotten. If a team does not like XML Schema for any
> reason, that is fine as long as an alternative is provided (Relax  
> NG, Schematron, etc.), as e.g. the SVG team does.
>
> Currently, the only "acceptable" XML Schema for XHTML is the one  
> for XHTML 1.0 Strict, and it contains some parts that are imho
> lazily defined. Short extract:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xhtml/xhtml1-strict.xsd
>  <!-- a character encoding, as per [RFC2045] -->
>  <xs:simpleType name="Charset">
>    <xs:restriction base="xs:string"/>
>  </xs:simpleType>
>  <!-- comma-separated list of media types, as per [RFC2045] -->
>  <xs:simpleType name="ContentTypes">
>    <xs:restriction base="xs:string"/>
>  </xs:simpleType>
>
> Except if one makes a validator that is able to understand natural  
> language in XML comments and then to fetch and parse the
> RFCs, that type of definition is useless.
>
> There is so far no official XML Schema for XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic  
> 1.0, XHTML Basic 1.1 and the official schemas for XHTML 1.0
> Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Frameset contain some bugs. (I am aware  
> that XHTML 1.0 has nothing to do with XHTML Modularization,
> but it is on the same topic).
>
>
> Here is a summary of the current status of XML Schema definitions  
> for various versions of XHTML, with issues I have found and
> reported after running some tests on a very small pool of XHTML  
> documents:
>
> + XHTML 1.1:
>   - Best available version (2006-07-05, not official)
>     [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/SCHEMA/xhtml11.xsd]
>     # Error: do not allow events such as "onmouseover",
>       in contradiction with the DTD and the specification
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006JulSep/0002.html]
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Jun/0029.html]
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006AprJun/0026.html]
>     # xs:import problem (no schemaLocation for XHTML datatypes  
> namespace in the driver)
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006JulSep/0002.html]
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006AprJun/0014.html]
>
> + XHTML Basic 1.0:
>   - Best available version
>     [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd]
>   - Latest version (2006-07-05, not official)
>     [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/SCHEMA/xhtml- 
> basic10.xsd]
>     # Error: "html" element not recognised...
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006JulSep/0002.html]
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Jun/0029.html]
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006May/0009.html]
>
> + XHTML Basic 1.1:
>   - None available
>
> + XHTML Modularization 1.1:
>   - Best available version (2006-07-05)
>     # Datatypes for "Charset", "ContentType", "MultiLengths" lazily  
> defined
>       (as strings, without any additional constraint)
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006JulSep/0015.html]
>       [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/ 
> 2006JulSep/0022.html]
>
> + XHTML Modularization 1.0:
>   - Best available version (2006-02-13)
>     # Same issues as XHTML Modularization 1.1
>
> + XHTML 1.0 Strict:
>   - Best available version (2002-07-02)
>     [http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xhtml/xhtml1-strict.xsd]
>     # Same type of issues as XHTML Modularization for lazily  
> defined datatypes
>
> + XHTML 1.0 Transitional:
>   - Best available version (2002-07-02)
>     [http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xhtml/xhtml1-transitional.xsd]
>     # Error: "name" attribute missing for the "form" element
>     # Same type of issues as XHTML Modularization for lazily  
> defined datatypes
>
> + XHTML 1.0 Frameset:
>   - Best available version (2002-07-02)
>     [http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xhtml/xhtml1-frameset.xsd]
>     # Major error in MultiLengths datatype
>     # Same type of issues as XHTML Modularization for lazily  
> defined datatypes
>
>
> I take the chance to vote for a reasonable bug tracking system,  
> easily accessible for the public with a direct link from the
> recommendations, as well as a way to submit some patches, to be  
> reviewed and applied within reasonable time.
> [http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/] and [http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/ 
> voyager-issues/] are good, but hard to find, to browse, and
> could be more up to date.
>
> Indeed, here is just one final example of frustration
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2001OctDec/ 
> 1246.html]: it took more than 4 (four) years for a major known
> error in the official XHTML Basic 1.0 DTD to be addressed (the  
> problematic module "XHTML Base Architecture" was then simply
> removed...). In the mean time, this error was not reported in any  
> public bug tracking system or official document, such as the
> "known errors" section of the specification
> [http://www.w3.org/2000/12/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219-errata] stating  
> wrongly "Known errors: None at this time". Similarly, there
> was no report to tell that the error was finally "corrected".
>
> So, please have a look to the reported issues regarding XHTML Basic  
> 1.1 and XHTML Modularization 1.1, before they are published.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Alexandre
> http://alexandre.alapetite.net
Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 04:11:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:02 GMT