- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 09:43:18 +0900
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
- Cc: mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com, W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Hi Shane, On 6-May-08, at 1:53 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > There are LOTS of modules in the xhtml namespace, and many of them > conflict with one another. So there would be no easy way to create > a DTD that contained all of the modules. Ah. I wasn't aware of conflicts between modules. Do you have examples handy? > I think I would look for @version on the html element as a way of > guessing which XHTML family markup language was in use. If there > was no @version, and no DOCTYPE..... I don't think I would try to > guess. Instead I would give the users a list of known XHTML Family > Markup languages and let the pick. ... > Then, of course, provide a validation error because there MUST be a > DOCTYPE declaration. Is there, today, a document type that at least allows me to use the features of ARIA, ITS, and RDFa? W3C should either provide a document type mixing most interesting features of XHTML, or add a conformance level where XHTML can be used without a doctype, using only the namespace. [ Given the need for a DOCTYPE declaration for browsers' standard mode at present, I guess the market is currently biased toward the former, but both would be useful ] A situation where one MUST use a doctype but isn't provided with a doctype to use all cool features of XHTML is rather counter-productive for the adoption of XHTML and its features, don't you think? Thanks, -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 00:43:58 UTC