Re: 3.6. The root element

2007/7/31, Robert Burns:
>
> This merely begs the question of why this attribute is in the
> recommendation. You could replace "xmlns" with "whatchamacallit" and
> that sentence would have the same clarity (or lack thereof). Why does
> the recommendation include this attribute that has no no effect and
> no meaning and not the infinity of other attributes that also have no
> effect and no meaning?

To make those "valid XHTML incorrectly served as text/html" valid
HTML5 (if they follow some "compatibility" guidelines). We have
"permitted slashes" on void elements for the very same reason.

> I thought I did. The unsigned integer, the signed integer, real
> number, ratio METER, PROGRESS, TIME all have lengthy algorithms that
> imply author conformance criteria without explicitly delineating the
> author conformance criteria. There may be other places, but those are
> the ones I've studied the most.

I disagree wrt numbers:

3.2.3.1. Unsigned integers
A string is a valid non-negative integer if it consists of one of more
characters in the range U+0030 DIGIT ZERO (0) to U+0039 DIGIT NINE
(9).

3.2.3.2. Signed integers
A string is a valid integer if it consists of one of more characters
in the range U+0030 DIGIT ZERO (0) to U+0039 DIGIT NINE (9),
optionally prefixed with a U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS ("-") character.

3.2.3.3. Real numbers
A string is a valid floating point number if it consists of one of
more characters in the range U+0030 DIGIT ZERO (0) to U+0039 DIGIT
NINE (9), optionally with a single U+002E FULL STOP (".") character
somewhere (either before these numbers, in between two numbers, or
after the numbers), all optionally prefixed with a U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS
("-") character.


I must admit that ratios and "Vaguer moments in time" (aka "date or
time", though not "Specific moments in time" which even comes with
examples) suffer from the lack of such definitions.

However, METER, PROGRESS and TIME elements come with some examples
(too few, and they might be improved explaining how they would be
interpreted (particularly true for the first METER examples)).

-- 
Thomas Broyer

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:52:59 UTC