W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2001

Re: XHTML Considered Harmful

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 03:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-talk@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106250240010.20998-100000@info.q2.net>
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Arjun Ray wrote:

> XML 1.0 brought us the idea of official non-valid-but-well-formed
> documents; in this world vocabularies can't give rules for what
> elements go where.

Actually, this is a newfangled interpretation.  The well-formed versus
valid distinction had to with the fact that there could be classes of
applications in which validation of instances might not matter.  This
is not the same as saying that vocabularies perforce are ill-defined.
Applications involving vocabularies (and their determinate processing)
will carry "validation" requirements - well, at least minimal ones.
They'll have to.  See, in this context,

 http://www.nyct.net/~aray/notes/wek-namespaces.txt
 
> I can only hope we leave this world soon (maybe by moving to UAs
> that, in the presence of Schema declarations, always validate?).

No, it's enough that semantically determinate structures can be
recovered.  See, e.g.

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0217.html 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0143.html

>> I'm just aware [of what] non-geeks are  likely to expect, and
>> therefore what willing vendors will eventually provide.
> 
> What do you think non-geeks are likely to expect? (This is not a
> rhetorical question -- I am genuinely curious as to your answer.)

"Why can't it be like it always was?"


Arjun
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 02:46:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:26 GMT