Re: QA and current state of XML schemas for XHTML?

Dear Karl Dubost,
Thank you for your message.

The situation regarding XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Modularisation has, in my
opinion, evolved positively - although not rapidly enough for my taste
- since the e-mail I sent to QA in July 2006
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2006Jul/0005.html],
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2006Jul/0021.html].

> The appropriate mailing-list for this following mail
> was www-html-editor and www-qa.

Please note that some of my messages were sent to www-html-editor and
www-qa in addition to www-html and public-qa-dev, but the responses
were not more numerous.

My current concerns and suggested corrections (with schemas) for XHTML
1.1 are reported in
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2007JanMar/0026.html],
and the ones about XHTML Modularisation in
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2007Feb/0001.html] and
the HTML WG has already addressed a few of them.

However, the situation regarding XHTML 1.0 (Strict, Transitional,
Frameset, Basic) and XHTML 1.1 Basic has not improved since my
messages in July.

> Olivier (W3C), who is in charge of W3C validators,
> shared some similar concerns with you.

I would be very pleased to receive comments, especially on the
Datatype issue of XHTML Modularisation.

> We do not have any controls on Aptest, but on the W3C Instance of
> Bugzilla. Would you mind sharing with us, how we could improve the
> visibility of it. Note that the W3C Bugzilla is used, in addition of
> others things, to track Markup Validator bugs.

One simple suggestion would be to provide a visible link (close to the
top) from the various W3C recommendations to a full and up-to-date
list of known bugs and suggestions (if any) regarding only this
specific recommendation.

Cordially,
Alexandre

Alexandre Alapetite
http://alexandre.alapetite.net

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 10:10:14 UTC