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 16:49:54 +0200
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, 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: <21D6D427-88B3-4604-986A-E20E8FF9A2B5@iki.fi>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
On Mar 1, 2010, at 15:51, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:

> 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).

XML tools work with XHTML5. You just aren't required to validate XHTML5 using a schema-based validation system. You may use a schema-based XML validation system if you want to, but you should be aware that no schema language can capture all the conformance requirements of XHTML5.

XHTML5 isn't substantially different from SVG 1.2 here. The schema offered for SVG 1.2 doesn't capture all the conformance requirements for SVG. For example, the schema doesn't check that xlink:href values are valid IRI references.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 14:50:47 UTC

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