Re: possible text on validation

Second attempt:

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

 > I'll follow up, with a shorter version (less explanation) and see what
 > people think.

 > After the following text in
 > [[
 > Therefore, it is suggested that GRDDL transformations
 > be written so that they perform all expected pre-processing, including
 > processing of related DTDs, Schemas and namespaces.  Such measure can
 > be avoided for documents which do not require such pre-processing to
 > yield an infoset that is faithful. That is, for documents which do not
 > reference XInclude, DTDs, XML Schemas and so on.</p>
 > ]]
 > I suggest the following:

Document authors, particularly XHTML document authors,
wishing their documents to be used unambiguously with GRDDL, are 
encouraged to avoid dependencies on an external <a 
 >DTD subset</a> (see <a href=
section 2.8</a> of [<a class="norm" href="#XML">XML</a>]);
To always explicitly include the XHTML namespace in an XHTML document,
or an appropriate namespace in an XML document.
To avoid use of entity references, except those listed
in <a href=
section 4.6</a> of [<a class="norm" href="#XML">XML</a>]
And, more generally, to
follow the rules
listed for <a
the standalone document</a> validity constraint.

I think that's better than the earlier essay!


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

Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 12:32:31 UTC