W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Beta: XHTML 1.0 in XML Schema

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:36:14 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-95E3C2C4EE8911D6B10300039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>>I don't really see that there is a lot we can do about this. Until and
>>unless the HTML WG issues updated DTDs for XHTML 1.0 -- and we do have
>>DTDs that were updated after the specification went to REC and moved
>>into /TR! -- we need to play the hand we were dealt. That means using
>>Schema with XHTML 1.0 involves modifying the Internal Subset to include
>>the requisite attribute definitions.
>
>That'd make the XHTML 1.0 document invalid (or call it non strictly
>conforming) but the Validator does not report any errors. Bad Validator.

No, it would make this a part of the informal part of the Document Type
Declaration and, much like the other parts of the specification which are
described only in the prose, one which we cannot test in the Validator.

Whether or not that makes it "Not Strictly Conforming" is a matter for the
HTML WG and/or www-html to discuss.


But as mentioned, if the HTML WG is willing to give me an excuse for it,
I'm willing to use modified DTDs to enable this. An errata on the XHTML 1.0
Recommendation... A note from the HTML WG suggesting this is the intended
or desireable behaviour (cf. the TAG's recent penchant for issuing "formal
opinions")... etc.

This has to come from the HTML WG; I can't make this change unilaterally!
Received on Saturday, 2 November 2002 12:36:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT