W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Reviewing Last Call RDFa

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:44:06 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0803211544p2e0caa19kcb57033481fca1c9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
> > 4.1   "There SHOULD be a DOCTYPE declaration in the document prior to
> > the root element."  DTDs are a an obsolete technology. Suggest the spec
> > not refer to them in any way.
> We would be happy to do so.... if only there was a W3C REC (and a
> validator.w3.org implementation) for validating XHTML1.1 using XML
> schema. Sadly, there isn't, and since we get a lot of "this won't
> validate!" criticism, we had to go with DOCTYPE and DTDs.

Under 'Conformance' in XHTML 1.1 I found:
The root element MAY also contain an schemaLocation attribute as defined in
the [XMLSCHEMA] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/references.html#ref_XMLSCHEMA>
. The schema location for XHTML is defined to be "

There MUST be a DOCTYPE declaration in the document prior to the root
element. If present, the public identifier included in the DOCTYPE
declaration MUST reference the DTD found in Appendix
its public identifier. The
system identifier MAY be modified appropriately.

So it looks there's no avoiding the DOCTYPE, though there may be a route
around the DTD while still allowing validation.

Is the association between the doc and the schema essential - not enough in
media type & namespace etc to adequately identify the document type?
(Reason I ask is my money would be on Relax NG being able to provide neater
validation of HTML+RDFa than xsd, but I don't believe there's any in-doc way
of making the association).

Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 22:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC