- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:36:33 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Toby Inkster' <tai@g5n.co.uk>, 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Joe D Williams wrote: > >>> no schema language can capture all the conformance requirements of >>> XHTML5. >> >> maybe so, because some requirements are runtime. > > Henri's not talking about runtime requirements. The static > machine-checkable syntax conformance requirements of HTML5 cannot be > fully and correctly expressed in any of the existing popular schema > languages. > >> 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. > > The crosscheck would be to use the validator. If you want a schema that > approximates most of the requirements, validator.nu includes a RelaxNG > schema that anyone could use for their own purposes. But it should not > be assumed that any content satisfying this schema is correct. > > My understanding is that DTDs and XML Schema are both significantly > weaker than Relax NG and can represent even fewer of the requirements > accurately. Second, I suggest that people who wish to discuss this topic (yet again!) do so in the context of bug 8611: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8611 > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:37:08 UTC