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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:37:12 +0100
To: "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "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: <op.u8vw4aqa64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:22:17 +0100, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@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...

Why is prose not enough? (There's no text/xhtml by the way, just  

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 10:38:18 UTC

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