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

Re: Schemas and validation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:17:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8D724D.7040702@intertwingly.net>
To: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, 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>
Joe D Williams wrote:
> 
> 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. 

What troubles me is that we are having the same discussions over and 
over again, without people bringing forward concrete proposals.  As you 
have stated, you wish for a .xsd Schema-driven validator.  Others have 
attempted to do this, and came to the conclusion that it is impractical. 
   Revisiting that discussion again, without any new information is not 
likely to come to any different results.

> I mean legal xhtml should always result in legal html, but maybe not the 
> reverse, right or close to right?

It certainly is not right, and as to whether or not it is close is a 
matter of opinion.  One concrete example:  <script src="foo"/> is legal 
in XHTML.  It not only is illegal in HTML5, it doesn't do what you might 
expect.  From an XML infoset perspective, it is indistinguishable from 
<script src="foo"></script>, which is legal HTML5.

Longer (and incomplete) list here:

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML

> 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 budget?

This validator will validate both XHTML5 and HTML5:

http://html5.validator.nu/

As an example, I will cite my own weblog, which is valid XHTML5.

http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fintertwingly.net%2Fblog%2F

There is no question that there should be a validator, and that such a 
validator needs to handle HTML5.  The question is whether XSD is 
necessary or sufficient for this task.

> Thanks Again and Best Regards,
> Joe

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 20:17:52 UTC

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