- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:40:06 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11910 --- Comment #3 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> 2011-01-28 16:40:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > So, for example, if an author was using XHTML 1.0 doctype, what then? I don't think that it should mention validity at all. If authors want to make sure their documents are valid there are plently of tools to do that without consulting this polyglot spec. It would be fruitless to try to enumerate the extra constraints one must satisfy to ensure that a conforming html document that uses a legacy but conforming doctype is valid xml. @id being Name is a tiny fraction of it, also you'd have to not use any new elements such as canvas, and the usage of all other elements would have to match the dtd in addition to what the html(5) spec says. So long as the document sticks to the single aim of specifying how to get conforming html documents to have equivalent parse trees if parsed as XML, then xml validity is irrelevant. David -- 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 Friday, 28 January 2011 16:40:08 UTC