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

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

--- Comment #4 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2012-03-15 13:03:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I assert that HTML4+RDFa is in scope.

I'd be interested in the Chairs' opinion on that.

> >  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.

I see many people saying they use HTML5 or telling the OP to do so. I'm trying
to limit my http://xkcd.com/386/ activity to W3C specs--not Reddit.

> 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.

No RDFa for them, then. It seems illogical to be OK with adding RDFa but not
with adding the delta from HTML4 to 5.

> I don't think merely providing a DTD encourages DTD-based validation.

I disagree. And it obviously at least fails to properly discourage it.

> >  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. 

But it assumes an SGML parser be used as *a* validation solution. The charter
says not to assume an SGML parser.

> 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?

I didn't expect spec comment handling to turn into Validator.nu feature
bargaining.

> 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).

Probably you would.

> 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?

I'm not particularly happy about making an alternative implementation a
prerequisite to removing the DTD from the spec.

-- 
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 Thursday, 15 March 2012 13:03:27 UTC