W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

RE: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 02:22:17 -0800
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Toby Inkster'" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D23D6B9E57D654429A9AB6918CACEAA97CA6084B09@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
I didn't mean XSD specifically, it could be RelaxNG (as being used by the SVG committee, for example).  

I understand that text/html(5) is not to be validated by an XML validation tool, but as text/xhtml(5) has to be valid and conforming XML - then I would expect some schema against which it could be validated...

Leonard

-----Original Message-----
From: Henri Sivonen [mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi] 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:18 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Larry Masinter; 'Toby Inkster'; 'Adam Barth'; 'HTML WG'
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

On Mar 1, 2010, at 08:49, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:

> So does this mean that there will be an XML Schema for the XHTML-serialization of HTML5, so that it can be validated? 

No. XSD is woefully inadequate for validating (X)HTML5.

However, the WG can't prevent anyone from writing an approximate XSD schema anyway.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 10:23:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC