- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 02:55:22 +0100
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >* Terje Bless wrote: >>>[...] That's unsatisfactory. >> >>Agreed. > >So how are you going to deal with it? Oh, so hard to choose... "Waddaya mean, `deal with itī? I am dealing with it. I'm _ignoring_ it!" ...or... "Uhm. By sticking my head in the sand and hoping it goes away...?" ...or... "SEP; Somebody Else's Problem! Talk to the HTML WG about it!" ...or... "Two Glenlivet, four Marlboro, and a bottle of Jack?" ...or... Oh, nevermind... :-) 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. If the HTML WG were to provide at least semi-official updated DTDs that included the attributes -- or at the very least added an errata on this -- I'd be inclined to use them. But I don't see how I can, on own initiative, alter the XHTML 1.0 DTDs and call the result "XHTML 1.0". I suggest you take the matter up with <www-html-editor@w3.org>. -- I have lobbied for the update and improvement of SGML. I've done it for years. I consider it the jewel for which XML is a setting. It does deserve a bit or polishing now and then. -- Len Bullard
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 20:55:28 UTC