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 05:51:29 -0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.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: <D23D6B9E57D654429A9AB6918CACEAA97CA6084B0D@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
I guess that depends on whether you expect existing XML tools to be able to process XHTML5 "out of the box" using standard XML processes as they do today with the existing XHTML.  It would seem unfortunate that an XHTML5 processing tool (not a UA, but just something that wants to do something with the content) can't just be an XML tool and would seem to ruin the whole point of it being XML (IMO).

Leonard

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:37 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol; Henri Sivonen
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Larry Masinter; 'Toby Inkster'; 'Adam Barth'; 'HTML WG'
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:22:17 +0100, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>  
wrote:
> 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  
application/xhtml+xml.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 13:52:34 UTC

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