- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:05:02 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15936 Summary: HTML+RDFa promotes DTD-based validation Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny) AssignedTo: msporny@digitalbazaar.com ReportedBy: hsivonen@iki.fi QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, msporny@digitalbazaar.com http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#validation says: - - Documents written using the markup language defined in this specification may be validated using the DTDs defined in this section. If a document author wants to facilitate such validation, they may include the following declaration at the top of their document for HTML 4.01 + RDFa 1.1: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/html401-rdfa11-1.dtd"> The following declaration may be included at the top of their document for HTML 4.01 + RDFa Lite 1.1: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa Lite 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/html401-rdfalite11-1.dtd"> - - And the doctypes are styled to be labeled as examples. This is all sorts of wrong. 1) A very creative interpretation of the HTML WG charter is required to consider HTML 4.01+something to be in scope. 2) This encourages DTD-based validation when DTDs are known to be obsolete and inadequate technology for the purpose of validating HTML or RDFa. It's irresponsible and counter-productive to promote known-obsolete and known-unsuitable-for-purpose technology. 3) It assumes the use of an SGML parser when the group's charter says explicitly: "the Group will not assume that an SGML parser is used for 'classic HTML'" 4) It encourages the use of novel doctypes when the WG has been working to retire doctypes as anything except for the purpose of triggering the standards mode in browsers. 5) Normative "may" statements says that doctypes can be used, but there's no normative text saying what the doctypes are, since the doctypes are marked as examples and http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#conformance says examples are non-normative. Please remove this section "A. Validation", its subsection and all references to DTDs from HTML+RDFa. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 13:10:15 UTC