- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:25:26 -0500
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Danny, The XHTML 1.1 document you were looking at is a Working Draft developed against a Working Draft of XHTML Modularization 1.1. We need to get M12N 1.1 through to CR->PR->REC before we can start using the schema m12n techniques in markup languages such as XHTML+RDFa. Danny Ayers wrote: > > > 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 <http://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 > "|http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml11.xsd|". > > 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 C > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11_dtd.html#a_xhtml11_dtd> using > its public identifier. The system identifier MAY be modified > appropriately. > ]] > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html#s_conform > > 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). > > Cheers, > Danny. > -- > http://dannyayers.com > ~ > http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/ -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 23:26:50 UTC