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

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

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:45 -0800
Message-ID: <0E63B1BF48E545BE9F07263BB33780C5@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>
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>
> no schema language can capture all the conformance requirements of 

maybe so, because some requirements are runtime. If we can't produce a 
valid (highly informative) XML Schema that can accurately represent 
the authortime syntax and sctructure requirements, then there will be 
no firm standards-track crosscheck between authortime content 
structures, the intent of the standard, and the runtime of the 
operating browser.

>  For example, the schema doesn't check that xlink:href values are 
> valid IRI references.

But a schema can include information that allows a detailed authortime 
check of expected user content cases, maybe in great detail. The 
schema can help determine if the data is as expected (datatypes) but 
that level of content inspection might not extend to predicting if 
some critical data, like the information encoded in a URI, is actually 
totally approprate and going to work in runtime. But the schema has 
hooks for detailed deep interactive vallidation stuff like that,

So far, I don't see any of html5 that fails one test in one way of me 
thinking of it.
If there is a schema that is an accurate representation of how the 
elements can be structured and when the data appears to be within 
reason (for however detailed you want to be) in authortime, then that 
could be used for applictaion/xhtml+xml as supported by the standard. 
I mean this includes it all, especailly ARIA. Then a document that 
made it through that could be published as text/html with a flle 
extension like .thml and any spec browser would surely do fine --  
except if there was unsupported media or some other flack. Of course 
it could also be published as application/xhtml+xml with a file 
extension like .xhtml because it should work or fail for the same 

If the DOM actually works the same for both forms with the same 
content, then I think it is the right track. The HTML5 standard is 
giving the content and structure models for legal and validatable 
html, and by extension xhtml, I would expect the basic content model 
of html5 can be represented in a more or less standard XML Schema.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 19:58:42 UTC

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