W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2008

Latest thoughts about ISSUE-240 (DTD Validation)

From: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:17:22 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819034F08DA@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Not been really convinced of removing grammar validation against
declared DTD test I'm been thinking in possible drawbacks.

Taking this html code as example:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html>
<head><title>title</title></head>
<body>
<p><a href="foo.html" target="_self">foo link</a></p>
</body>
</html>

This web page is valid if we use XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD and so could be
amobileOk Basic page but if we check its grammar validity against its
declared DTD we get an failure. XHTML Basic 1.0 doesn't support target
attribute whereas it has been included in XHTML Basic 1.1.

The target attribute doesn't prevent from achieving mobileOK Basic claim
("_self","_top" and "_parent" are valid values).

If you have to tell someone that a web page is mobileOK Basic but has
grammar failures, it won't sound good. Furthermore, he could ask you if
there is no grammar validity requirement to achive mobileOK Basic claim,
and the answer will be something like: yes, any mobileOK Basic page must
pass a grammar validation but not against its declared DTD. The web page
has to be Basic 1.1 or MP 1.2 valid only. But mobileOK pages are no
restricted to use only these grammars, the web page can use any other
grammar but the grammar validity is checked as if it were Basic 1.1 or
MP 1.2.

For an outside viewer mobileOK Basic grammar validity requirement could
look a bit weird.

This issue deserve a thorough thought and balance possible drawbacks.
I'll think about other drawbacks.

Miguel
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 19:17:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC