- From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:31:01 -0700
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Might we move 'well formed' into guide doc as part of the discussion of sufficiency and state only that SGML derived documents be unambiguously parsable. Leave to guide or techniques the 'test' of well formedness and have the SC state what we intend: that the parse tree is available unambiguously. /m -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:19 AM To: christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] This means that xhtml pages served as text/html for IE (and application/xhtml+xml for others), for IE are inside first case (SGML-based formats). Also "HTML Techniques" need also to be HTML/XHTML (or "Markup Techniques"), due that inside there are also example of "correct use" of <applet> and <embed> elements? And, also, there is suggested to use target attribute for open new windows instead of script: but "target" is not allowed in XHTML 1.0 Strict (and also in HTML 4.01 Strict)... ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: "Christophe Strobbe"<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> Inviato: 20/06/05 13.14.30 A: "WAI-GL"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Oggetto: Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Hi Joe, At 19:16 17/06/2005, Joe Clark wrote: >>It is true that SGML does not define well-formedness, but if you say that >>a well-formed document is essentially "one that can unambiguously be >>parsed to create a logical tree in memory" (Jon Bosak, at >>http://www.isgmlug.org/n3-1/n3-1-18.htm), then you can apply this concept >>also to SGML. > >OK, so let me understand this: The Working Group is contemplating issuing >a vague and counterfactual guideline based on one person's blog posting, The new success criterion is not based on Jon Bosak's article; if you had that impression, that is entirely my fault (i.e. the wording of my response to Gez Lemon). I tried to identify criteria for well-formedness "after the fact". We now have 2 SCs at GL 4.1 L 1: one for SGML-based formats and one for all other formats. We may consider splitting the first one into two SCs: one that requires well-formedness for XML-based formats and one that requires something else for non-XML SGML-based formats, but we're still struggling to define this "something else". If we want to stick to the terms of the SGML standard, we could require that "Non-XML SGML-based delivery units are formatted according to the SGML declaration of their specification or to the Reference Concrete Syntax if no SGML declaration is defined." We might then add a note saying that this does not require (type-)validity. The XML specification does not define well-formedness by means of an SGML declaration but in Extended Backus Naur Form; this is why I propose to split the first rule instead of treating XML as a special case of SGML. An SGML declaration defines such things as the character set and the characters that can be used for delimiters (e.g. <, >, </); it defines a "concrete syntax". The Reference Concrete Syntax is a concrete syntax defined in the SGML standard. (Note that SGML parsers are not required to detect or report errors.) Regards, Christophe Strobbe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 18:31:10 UTC