W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2004

Re: UKUUG Website query

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:10:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401040001300.15442@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> Well, that's what validity means in SGML (and XML). It is much better to
> use other words to describe compliance to something else. If you use
> "valid" and "validator" in a loose sense, as many people do, then you
> will lack an expression to what those words mean the SGML context. You
> will not be able to distinguish them from everyone's and his dog's rules
> for what is "valid" and what is not.

Ok, let me phrase this another way:

Why is conformance-to-a-subset-of-the-conformance-requirements-that-
happens-to-be-describable-using-a-particular-schema-language a concept
that needs its own term?

It seems to me that by making such a fuss over conformance to that subset
you are diluting the point of conformance to the whole specification.

The funniest thing is that using your definition, the following:

   <a><a>test</a></a>

...is invalid in HTML4, but valid in XHTML1, even though the _only_ reason
for this difference is a limitation of the schema language used for XHTML.
(XML DTDs don't support inclusions and exclusions).

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 3 January 2004 19:10:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:10 GMT