- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:09:04 -0800
- To: "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>
- 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>
> approaches to validation of HTML/XHTML Thanks for the recap information. Now I remember the list of validation topics I was to study. Seems like I have been living in a stable and predictable environment and have not been exposed to the rigors of real world validation of something with such abundant composability that it is removed from the realm of schemata, or maybe I have been stuck at some 'acceptable' level of validation ignoring some vital details. However most people work on more complicated publishing mashups than me. > Although I think it is wrong to not provide formal schema as a part > of HTML5 spec, ... I think if I am a specifier, then maybe at least I would like to hear and see some proof of the word Recommendation. For example, I would like to think that out of all this html5 stuff, at least here is something that can be fairly represented by standards-track .xsd. Warning: this .xsd may not represent all possible allowances and restrictions made by a UA working on text/html, but it does describe in reasonable detail recommended structures and content types for elements and value types for attributes supported by this standard. Warning: This model is somewhat restricted from the written standard for acceptable stuff but satisfies modern coding practices that should work in all browsers served as text/htm(5). This does not signify a profle or version of html, just typical content models that can be used for static validation of complete documents. Exceptions: none known, because if it can't be modelled by .xsd then it won't make it into this "html5 Recommended Schema' so the feature or exception or fixups or deprecsoleted features won't be widely used for new content. . At this point, I need a list of what would be lost if the element structures and contents and attribute values that could not be represented with intended functionality using .xsd, were not included in this schema. Yes, @srcdoc and anything that reasonably has to be tested visually and functionally or externally anyway may not need to be in this schema. Additional constraints and admonitions like these: the interactive element video with the attribute controls must not appear as a descendant of the a element, or as a descendant of the button element, might not be convenient to be in the schema, but those strike me as being something I would want to test by running the thing using some provided conformance test to see if it mattered to my favorite browser anyway. Regex and other simple processing/simultation might be included, but this is a schema for the masses that don't care about that legacy stuff or trick constructions and just want to get down with basic transportable html5. Almost at the level of the html5 vocabulary reference document with meaningful content models allowed -- not an attempt to show the total power of html5 as delivered by top W3C HTML5 WWW browsers, but an appropriate point for common agreement on currrent recommended best HTML practice and base for continued development of HTML. >> Then that should not be an acceptable structure (because it cannot >> be validated by XML schema...) > Sorry, but this is completely wrong reasoning. Well, now I think <video> with its conditional structure can be validated but .. another thread... OK, but I started off with the idea that every element has a content model that can be represented by .xsd. if it wouldn't work in .xsd then keep thinking until it does or else fix .xsd if possible. Evidentally there are common html5 models or important constraints and admonisions that cannot be represented in .xsd. I would say throw them out of contention for acknowledgement in this schema. So, I still think the WG should produce a standards-track .xsd for HTML that can show describable content models and let it go at that. I think even in limited form, and while not fullfilling all requirements in the standard, it would be very useful. Thanks to All and Best Regards, Joe
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 16:10:11 UTC