- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:44:42 +0900 (JST)
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> wrote: > Entities and well-formed internal subset parsing are a place where I easily > get confused, so I: > 1. added my own entity declaration (<!ENTITY ent1 "Hello">) and used it > (&ent1) in an xhtml document; your schema considered the instance valid. > 2. used an entity (&ent2) in an xhtml document that wasn't declared; your > schema *still* considered it valid. It really depends on how exactly you wrote your document. If you didn't include any document type declaration and used an undefined entity, it's not a validity error, but a well-formedness error. cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#wf-entdeclared > Regardless, in trying to track what's still going on: > 1. Just last month the Schema WG asked about using schema for 'XHTML + > MathML + SVG Profile' and you responded there's reluctance because of a > lack of entity support in Schema: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2003AprJun/0085.html That's a secondary issue, and largely because of MathML, which has much larger collection of character entities than XHTML. The same reasoning doesn't necessarily apply to RDF or XHTML 2.0. > 2. However, you've also noted that XHTML2.0 will be using Schema? I've been arguing to drop mandatory support for character entities (and mandatory requirement to include a document type declaration in a strictly conforming XHTML 2.0 document) from XHTML 2.0 for a long time, partly because I believe supporting RDF is more important than requiring support for a fixed set of character entities. It's been a long debate, and I have to say I'm not on the majority side. > If I understand that correctly, are these reconciled in an expectation that > something will come along as you work on XHTML2.0 that will provide you > with an equivalent of entities? At the very least entitiy definitions should be separated from grammar definitions. Using a document type declaration doesn't necessarily mean you have to use a specific document type definition. Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 03:44:44 UTC