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...


-----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
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 10:23:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC