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

Re: Beta: XHTML 1.0 in XML Schema

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>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-D13BED0AEC7311D6A2D300039300CF5C@[]>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Terje Bless wrote:
>>>[...] That's unsatisfactory.
>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!"


  "Uhm. By sticking my head in the sand and hoping it goes away...?"


  "SEP; Somebody Else's Problem! Talk to the HTML WG about it!"


  "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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:35 UTC