- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:24:09 +0000
- To: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Cc: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>, bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 20:00 -0800, Joe D Williams wrote: > Ok, so that is a rule for XHTML but does not describe or explain the > text/html usage where the atttribute may appear in html as a string > not followed by = but having the special rule that says if only the > attribute name string is present and followed by separator then that > is ok and the default value is the empty string which means a default > functionality that you can go read in the spec what it does. In this > case it is the =value part of the attribute that is optional in the > user code (or is the name= part optional?) . Clearly an XML schema would only be directly applicable to HTML5 that is also XML (i.e. XHTML5), but even with this limitation, it still seems like a valuable exercise. HTML5's text/html syntax has a canonical mapping to the DOM, and -- excepting a few edge cases[1] -- the DOM can be serialised to XHTML[2], so via this indirect route text/html would also be checkable against an XML schema. ____ 1. And some of the edge cases could be worked around. e.g. DOMs that contain unserializable Comment nodes could just have those nodes removed prior to serialisation, as they're not going to cause any problems checking against an XML schema. 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html#serializing-xhtml-fragments -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 07:24:52 UTC