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

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:35:47 +0200
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: <FB7BF4E1-463E-40DD-8AB3-139F050D3666@iki.fi>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:22, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:

> I didn't mean XSD specifically, it could be RelaxNG (as being used by the SVG committee, for example).

RELAX NG is inadequate, too, but an approximation is available.

> I understand that text/html(5) is not to be validated by an XML validation tool,

You can use RELAX NG validator with text/html if you use an HTML parser that exposes the document tree in the way that the RELAX NG validator can consume.

> but as text/xhtml(5) has to be valid and conforming XML - then I would expect some schema against which it could be validated...

XHTML5 doesn't have to be valid according to a schema. It is required to meet the requirements that the HTML5 spec states in English. The spec doesn't require a particular mechanism for assessing whether content meets the requirements.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 10:36:31 UTC

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