[Bug 15936] HTML+RDFa promotes DTD-based validation

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15936

--- Comment #1 from Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 2012-03-11 01:01:02 UTC ---
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, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Not a Bug. Possible Need to Examine HTML WG Charter and 
HTML+RDFa interplay by HTML WG Chairs.

Technical Description: 

The submitter has asked for the removal of section "A. Validation", its 
subsection, and all references to DTDs from HTML+RDFa. This is due to the 
move away from DTD-based validation in HTML5 and because the submitter 
believes that any work on extending HTML4 is not in scope in the 
HTML WG charter.

Rationale:

The submitter made a number of assertions in the bug report, a response 
is provided for each one below:

> And the doctypes are styled to be labeled as examples.

I'm assuming that markup as an example is implying that the markup is 
non-normative. This is a spec bug and I will fix it in the next release.

> 1) A very creative interpretation of the HTML WG charter is required to consider 
> HTML 4.01+something to be in scope.

The HTML WG charter says the following: 

"This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML 
specification, which includes the series of specifications previously 
published as XHTML version 1. Both XML and 'classic HTML' syntaxes will 
be produced."

"The Group will define conformance and parsing requirements for 
'classic HTML', taking into account legacy implementations"

"The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit independently 
developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag Set (ITS), Ruby, 
and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents. Whether this occurs through the 
extensibility mechanism of XML, whether it is also allowed in the classic 
HTML serialization, and whether it uses the DTD and Schema modularization 
techniques, is for the HTML WG to determine."

Nothing in there bans "an incremental revision ot the HTML specification" that 
defines "conformance and parsing requirements for 'classic HTML', that is
"allowed in the classic HTML serialization" that "uses the DTD technique".

I assert that HTML4+RDFa is in scope. I do this not because I think HTML4+RDFa
is the future of the HTML language, but because there is evidence that some
Web authors do not intend to migrate to HTML5 at any point in the near future
and the RDF Web Apps WG would like to offer an RDFa solution to these authors.

>  2) This encourages DTD-based validation when DTDs are known to be obsolete and
> inadequate technology for the purpose of validating HTML or RDFa. It's
> irresponsible and counter-productive to promote known-obsolete and
> known-unsuitable-for-purpose technology.

Take a look at this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/web_design/comments/kh5mi/so_im_still_designing_sites_with_html_4_and_css_2/

In it, you will find a number of Web Authors working against their best 
interests by scoffing at HTML5 and just sticking with HTML4. That thread is
only 5 months old. While all of us would like to see everyone move as
quickly to HTML4 as possible... there are going to be IT departments that
continue to publish HTML4 for a very long time to come. Many of these in
government, which moves at a glacial pace.  Some of these authors 
might want to use RDFa to achieve a better SERP in the search engines.

So, while I do agree that DTD-based validation is inadequate, these authors
have no other solution that is being presented to them other than 
upgrade to HTML5, which the thread above demonstrates that a non-trivial
portion of them do not intend to do at any point in the near future.

I don't think merely providing a DTD encourages DTD-based validation. We are
moving away from it as a Web community. It will eventually die, but until
that happens, the RDF Web Apps WG would like to provide /something/ that
folks that want to stick with HTML4 can use to validate the RDFa in their
HTML4 documents.

>  3) It assumes the use of an SGML parser when the group's charter says
> explicitly: "the Group will not assume that an SGML parser is used for 'classic
> HTML'"

RDFa in HTML doesn't assume an SGML parser as the sole solution as HTML5+RDFa
and 
HTML5+RDFa Lite use the new validation techniques. We could even add something
for HTML4+RDFa to validator.nu if that is what you would prefer. In fact,
I would be happy to see an HTML4+RDFa validator in validator.nu if that is
what you would prefer... at that point we could drop the HTML4+RDFa 1.1 DTDs.
However, what is not acceptable is dropping HTML4+RDFa 1.1 entirely. Thoughts?

>  4) It encourages the use of novel doctypes when the WG has been working to
> retire doctypes as anything except for the purpose of triggering the standards
> mode in browsers.

Again, happy to retire the DTD if HTML4+RDFa 1.1 continues to exist as
something
that can be validated using a W3C tool.

>  5) Normative "may" statements says that doctypes can be used, but there's no
> normative text saying what the doctypes are, since the doctypes are marked as
> examples and http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#conformance says examples are
> non-normative.

An oversight, this will be fixed in the next revision.

> Please remove this section "A. Validation", its subsection and all references
> to DTDs from HTML+RDFa.

Only if a separate mechanism exists for validating HTML4+RDFa 1.1 documents.
Henri, since you're the expert here - would we be able to add this validation
mechanism to the validator.nu validator at W3C? (I'm not asking you to do 
the work as I think that Mike Smith has already done the majority of this 
work for HTML5+RDFa).

So, the current proposal is this: HTML4+RDFa 1.1 remains in the HTML+RDFa 
specification as it is in scope per the charter. We will need a ruling by the
Chairs of the HTML WG to assert anything to the contrary. We can remove the
HTML4+RDFa 1.1 DTD only if there is another currently valid mechanism
for validating HTML4+RDFa 1.1 documents. An addition to the validator.nu
validator at W3C would be acceptable.

What are your thoughts on this proposal, Henri?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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 Sunday, 11 March 2012 01:01:07 UTC