- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:56:23 +0900
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Olivier Théreaux <ot@w3.org>
Le 06-06-09 à 22:27, Steven Pemberton a écrit :
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:56:24 +0200, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> I think there is often a misunderstanding about what is a validator.
>> The validator doesn't reject anything,
>
> I disagree here.
??? Did you read the thread?
The validator doesn't decide to mandate the specification, so the
validator doesn't reject anything in the sense doesn't take the
decision to do something opposite to what the specifications say.
>> So as I said,
>> - namespaces are not valid BY design BY the specification.
>
> No. Namespaces are not valid due to a lack of ability by DTDs to
> handle them.
huh? I'm puzzled.
The HTML WG defines a technology. When doing so, the group has chosen
other technologies to define it. The specification defines the
features of XHTML 1.0 specification. Standards are a social process
based on technology. XHTML 1.0 is based on chosen technologies. So
it's really by design (by choice if you prefer).
> The XHTML 1 spec also says:
>
> "If a user agent encounters an attribute it does not recognize, it
> must ignore the entire attribute specification (i.e., the attribute
> and its value)."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#uaconf
>
> Which covers things like xmlns attributes. The document may not
> then be 'strictly valid', because DTDs are unable to define such
> rules, but you can call it conformant.
Steven, you are missing two different things.
- Document conformance
- User agent conformance
It's not the same thing. What you refer to is *user agent*
conformance, and we were talking about *document* conformance.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 01:09:00 UTC