Re: misc editorial questions/issues on spec

David:
- only really answering one question about (in)valid XHTML - although 
from memory rather than the minutes

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> 
> Q11: Sec 4, normative definition of metadata profile name is unclear
> a. The definition does not say that the "XHTML document" must conform to
> the XHTML 1.0 specification. 
>  It requires only that the root element is
> "html" and has namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml .  Is this
> intentional? 

That was deliberate.

> b. Must the "head" element be in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
> namespace?
> c. Must the "profile" attribute be in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
> namespace?
> d. Must the "head" element be a child of the root element?
> e. What if there are multiple "head" elements?

My take on this, is that, the spec attempts to steer a course between:
- specifying only for valid XHTML, where none of these questions apply
- specifying for arbitrary gibberish

Documents on the web are closer to the former than the latter, and I 
don't see the questions b. c. d. and e. as particularly pressing.

For the reader who asks such questions, the mechanical rule 
(informative) does answer all of them:

(?N
  """
*[local-name()="html" and
   namespace-uri()="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"] /
  *[local-name()="head" and
    namespace-uri()="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"]""")
  gspec:xpath ?E.
(?E "@profile") gspec:xpath [ fn:string ?V ].


I think that suffices.

Answers to your questions, from that are:


 > b. Must the "head" element be in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
 > namespace?
yes
 > c. Must the "profile" attribute be in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
 > namespace?
yes
 > d. Must the "head" element be a child of the root element?
yes
 > e. What if there are multiple "head" elements?
all profiles count

Jeremy


-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:04:15 UTC