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

Re: Schemas and validation

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:53:04 -0800
Message-ID: <96D276E7DF4A4DD8899C5D16673A434B@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "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>

>>> (Disclaimer: I didn't double-check that this exceeds the 
>>> capabilities of XSD 1.0.) The <video> element allows <source> 
>>> children only if it doesn't have the src attribute. This can be 
>>> represented in RELAX NG, but, IIRC, this can't be represented in 
>>> XSD 1.0.

Then that should not be an acceptable structure (because it cannot be 
validated by XML schema (Which I am not 100% certain of right now.)). 
and is easily avoided in practice. I would have spoken up earlier if I 
had noticed that detail.

The @src only provides the first choice and the optional source 
elements provide subsequent fallback choices. It should not be the 
@src element that is somehow optional in case of source elements. It 
is the source elements that are optional fallback. Besides, it should 
be legal for empty @src where the UA fires up the player depending 
upon the video @type or the first <source> that works. I will look.

Thanks, I will also look at the table example. My thought is that a 
table that is outside a comprehensive schema model is not table, it is 
probably layout.

Sam > ... primarily will depend on whether or not there exists anybody 
who is willing to do the work.

Well, first, the proposition is: should it be done? I wish for a nice 
clean XML standards-track XML .xsd Schema-driven validator. I think it 
is basic for a language that needs XML, and I think html needs xml, at 
least as xhtml can be derived or specified and still produce legal 
html. I mean legal xhtml should always result in legal html, but maybe 
not the reverse, right or close to right?

When starting with the html, then the xhtml as defined by schema gives 
guidance about acceptable structures and types. Validating html 
without reference to equicalent xhtml then depends upon maintaining 
legal structures and/or on tools that can be more responsive to the 
variabllity of syntax/usage that may be possible by depending upon 
specified UA intervention in building the DOM.

Whether or not there exists anybody who is willing to produce a 

Thanks Again and Best Regards,
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 19:53:59 UTC

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