W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > October 2011

Re: HTML/XML TF report introductory text

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:20:24 +0200
Cc: rleif@rleif.com, public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-Id: <B1858CF8-918B-4C22-B2D0-D578AF978799@berjon.com>
To: liam@w3.org
On Oct 21, 2011, at 07:59 , Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 07:46 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2011, at 06:49 , Robert Leif wrote:
>>> The only acceptable attribute value for xmlns is <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>>> I believe that this demonstrates that there is a problem with namespace declarations.
>> No, I'm pretty sure that just demonstrates why DTDs should either be
>> updated or disposed of :) But that's the job for another group.
> There have been several proposals over the years for updating DTDs, with
> varying levels of obscure or arcane syntax.  But none of the proposals
> seems to have clear benefits over W3C XSD, or even over RNG, and the
> cost of changing DTDs could potentially be very high in terms of
> interoperability.
> I don't see that changing as a result of HTML 5.

Neither do I, hence the smiley :)

> On the other hand, DTDs are the only way (today) to declare text
> entities, and are useful for simple syntax checking, so I also don't see
> them going away any time soon.

Right, but if we were to do XML5 or something like that I would expect all the common text entities to be predefined and for DTDs to go.

Either way, without looking at the code I'm pretty sure that Robert's error comes from using a DTD. Other schema languages are generally pretty bad at distributed extensibility, but not quite that bad.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 07:20:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:28 UTC