RE: ISSUE-240: Remove requirement of validity to self-declared DTD [mobileOK Basic tests]

I support the idea of 

>  * replace it by requiring that step only when the System ID matches a
> well-known DTD (which would be listed in the spec)

The main point being that it would be nice to say that the document _is_ valid, so well done, but can you please make it XHTML Basic 1.1 (or MP) valid.

On the general point of the value of validity checking in general. I am strongly taken with the idea that we fail only on important aspects of the validation, per Dom's note on the subject [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0017.html

Sean [Owen] suggested that an answer might be to have a less limiting XHTML Basic 1.2 - But I'm not sure about that, given that we've waited so long for Basic 1.1 and it's _still_ not with us. 

I'm also actually starting to be less and less convinced that well-formedness matters all that much either, like not closing elements that can't have any content anyway doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 13 March 2008 15:45
> To: public-bpwg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-240: Remove requirement of validity to self-declared DTD
> [mobileOK Basic tests]
> 
> 
> ISSUE-240: Remove requirement of validity to self-declared DTD [mobileOK
> Basic tests]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
> On product: mobileOK Basic tests
> 
> validity to self-declared DTD is problematic for implementations:
>  * it requires having SGML validation in checkers (for non XML versions of
> HTML)
>  * it requires downloading DTDs from unknown locations when a page uses a
> non-standard doctype.
> 
> We could:
>  * remove that test (given that we already have a fairly stringeant test
> of XHTML Basic validity)
>  * replace it by requiring that step only when the System ID matches a
> well-known DTD (which would be listed in the spec)
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 17:42:32 UTC