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 23:36:42 +0100
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-8FD1BC46EEB311D6B10300039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>You are missing my point.

Not at all, I don't think.

Defining things in the internal subset does not automatically invalidate it
as XHTML 1.0. It /may/ invalidate it, but we are talking about a grey area
here, and a fairly big one at that. Your latter snippet _is_ invalid, no
question about it. It includes attributes that are not defined anywhere in
the Document Type Declaration, whereas the former _does_ define them; in
the Internal Subset of the Document Type Declaration.

What your first snippet does is extend the Document Type Declaration, which
isn't expressly forbidden by the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation BTW, but it does
so in a way which is sanctioned, suggested even, by a Note (with all that
that does and doesn't imply, cf. "endorsement" etc. in it's disclaimer).

The interpretation of whether this makes the document invalid -- according
to the Informal part of the Document Type Declaration (embodied by the
XHTMl 1.0 Recommendation) -- is a matter for the HTML WG to decide.
Further, it's outside the scope of the Validator! We _cannot_ test the
Informal part of the Document Type Declaration -- only the formal part,
embodied by the DTD and the Internal Subset -- except as an "add-on" option
ala the old "weblint" option, or the proposed attribute value checking.


In other words, your latter example -- the one with no Internal Subset, but
with the xsi attributes -- is clearly invalid, but the first snippet may or
may not be valid, invalid, strictly conforming, or merely "acceptable". And
all this depends on the HTML WG's interpretation of the issue.



[
  And in case this isn't perfectly clear to anyone yet, I'm trying
  rilly rilly hard to dodge out of having to bring a formal request
  for clarification/interpretation to the HTML WG here. :-)

  So if "someone" should feel like taking the matter into their own
  hands... :-)
]


-- 
I have to admit that I'm hoping the current situation with regard to XML
Namespaces and W3C XML Schemas is a giant practical joke,   but I see no
signs of pranksters coming forward with a gleeful smile to announce that
they were just kidding.                              -- Simon St.Laurent
Received on Saturday, 2 November 2002 17:36:49 GMT

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