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

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

From: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:28:52 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819034F0E57@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <public-bpwg@w3.org>

>>[Jo's] Proposed Text:
>>If the document does not contain a DOCTYPE declaration, FAIL
>>If the document is not an HTML document, FAIL
>>If the DOCTYPE is not an XML DOCTYPE, warn
>>If the document is an HTML document and it has an XML DOCTYPE:
>>	If the document does not declare the html namespace on its html root
>>element, FAIL
>>	If the DOCTYPE refers to [a known] xhtml version, validate against
>>that DOCTYPE and if invalid, warn
>>	Otherwise (the DOCTYPE is not known), warn
>>If ( regardless of its stated DOCTYPE) the document does not validate
>>against the XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD:
>>	If ( regardless of its stated DOCTYPE) it does not validate against
>>the XHTML-MP 1.2 DTD, FAIL

I think it is OK. 

>>If the above looks more-or-less OK then the question is what is the list
>>of "known" DOCTYPEs and how can the spec be made future proof against
>>further versions of xhtml? (That's the good thing about standards, there
>>are so many of them to choose from)

I also support proposed Sean's list of "known" DOCTYPES (XHTML MP 1.0 - 1.2 and XHTML Basic 1.0 - 1.1)

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
>>> Sent: 18 April 2008 02:17
>>> To: Miguel Garcia; public-bpwg@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Latest thoughts about ISSUE-240 (DTD Validation)
>>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:17:22 +0200, Miguel Garcia
>>> <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
>>> ...[explanation of why...]
>>> > For an outside viewer mobileOK Basic grammar validity requirement
>>> > look a bit weird.
>>> Sure. The only sensible explanation is that it takes into account what
>>> works in the real world, rather than trying to require things that don't
>>> matter in practice, and also takes into account the purpose of the
>>> grammar, rather than saying "well, anything is as good as anything
>>> The easy way to get this right is to do the right thing. But some wrong
>>> things have no real impact so don't matter. This test is smart enough to
>>> recognise some of that.
>>> cheers
>>> Chaals
>>> --
>>> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>>>      je parle franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg lŠrer norsk
>>> http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 11:29:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC