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

Re: Schemas and validation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:36:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8C2551.7010204@intertwingly.net>
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:


> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:37:08 UTC

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