Re: Latest thoughts about ISSUE-240 (DTD Validation)

This is an interesting point.

I think we had figured that, typically, any resource that fails
validation according to its own DTD will fail according to XHTML Basic
or MP. But this is a legitimate counter-example; it's valid Basic 1.1
but not valid according to its own DTD. I think this is a fairly rare
case, yet it does seem odd to say this is OK.

I remain relatively neutral on this change. Does anyone think we could
avoid another last call if we did not fully remove the requirement to
validate according to its own DTD, but did limit the rule to apply to
documents with certain known DTDs? If so, that would be a good reason
to reverse what we decided today.

If not, then while I agree this is an issue, I still mildly support
the change as decided today.


On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Miguel Garcia
<> wrote:
>  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"
>  "">
>  <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 22:05:58 UTC