Re: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Validation Specification

We considered your proposal.  We decided against incorporating
it into the validation spec; however, if groups such as yours wish
to add such extensions on their own, that would be ok.  We will
add documentation to that effect.

Please let us know if you are satisfied (or not) with the resolution.


Ron Ausbrooks wrote:

> Hello,
> The Math Working Group has reviewed the DOM Level 3 Validation
> Specification, and we have no objections to it.
> However, we'd like to inquire about the possibility of more stringent
> validation for particular XML dialects. In some cases notably MathML and
> HTML) there are restrictions in the recommendations which aren't codifiable
> in a DTD or W3C XML Schema. Do you feel that it would be appropriate for us
> to define an extension of the NodeEditVAL interface for the MathML DOM,
> adding a new CheckTypeVAL constant so that validation would include these
> non-codifiable restrictions? (This would be named something like
> "MATHML_STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK", and would of necessity includes
> STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK.) A feature string such as "MATHML-VAL-DOC" would be
> needed as well. Or do you see this as exceeding the mandate of validation?
> thanks,
> Ron Ausbrooks

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 18:53:47 UTC