W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2011

[Bug 13409] Defining Entity references for characters in XHTML.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 22:32:39 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QqYND-0005NL-9t@jessica.w3.org>

David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #3 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> 2011-08-08 22:32:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
> satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
> you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, 

Reopening as I note in the decision process this has to be done within 2 weeks,
although I'm traveling so this response is less complete than otherwise might
have been the case, will respond more fully if necessary later.

> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: Using entity references in an XML document bearing a doctype whose
> public id is not on the list of special public ids currently listed in the spec
> wouldn't be compatible with deployed browsers.

I do not believe that browser behaviour was particularly consistent here and so
the blanket statement that not using the exact list specified is incompatible
with deployed browsers is misleading. IE for example by default fetched
external dtd when parsing xml, so would define any entities
defined in any specified dtd.

The xml version of the mathml2 spec for example does not use any of these
public identifiers (it uses SYSTEM "mathml.dtd" and uses entity references
which did get resolved in IE and firefox at least. (The mathml3 version doesn't
uses any entity references for characters). Firefox nightly (and I assume any
other using the html(5) spec gives a fatal parse error on


which did work in all versions up to firefox 3

and still works in IE9/MathPlayer

> In other words, such content
> wouldn't Degrade Gracefully. The allegation that the list encourages the use of
> a non-conforming (for XHTML5) DTD is incorrect.

It encourages the use of DTD that specify a syntax for previous versions of
(x)html which is going to be pretty confusing for users especially in
toolchains where the presence of a doctype triggers validation.

. DTDs are part of the XML syntax
> and, thus, are part of the syntax layer that XHTML5 is built on top of. Since
> XML doesn't provide an abstraction for specs layered on top of XML to place
> constraints on the XML layer, XHTML5 has no jurisdiction to place constraints
> on the XML layer (even though it suggests a particular entity resolver
> configuration). XHTML5 conformance requirement cannot restrict the use of a
> DTD, so any DTD is conforming for XHTML5.

I don't know why you say xhtml5 can not restrict the dtd, all previous versions
have restricted the dtd that are considered valid (or conforming to use the
current terminology) xhtml. 

> Thus, the spec isn't encouraging the
> use of DTDs that are non-conforming for XHTML5.

That's playing with words. As noted above it encourages the use of DTD that are
aimed at older versions of html, and it removes the feature (which is cosmetic,
but popular) or using named character references from any document that uses
DTD that are targeted at current versions of html or which uses the
recommeneded versionless doctype <!DOCTYPE html>.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 22:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:00 UTC