Re: Persistent XHTML M12N bugs

Thanks for the reply.

> > I was working on bringing my RELAX NG implementation of XHTML M12N into
> > conformance with the final Rec and I noticed that a couple of issues
that I
> > had reported did not appear to be resolved.  Specifically:
> >
> > 1. In the basic tables abstract module, the table element has a width
> > attribute, but the DTD does not. I reported this twice:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2001JanMar/0258.html
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2001JanMar/0033.html
>
> This, in my opinion, is a bug in the DTD that has been "fixed" several
> times.  We can fix it harder ;-), but we need to get affirmation of it
> from the working group. I am forwarding this message into the database
> in order to re-open the trouble ticket.

I'm confused: is the DTD right or is the abstract module right?

> > 2. The content model of the frameset element in XHTML modularization
allows
> > the noframes element only as the last child (both the abstract and the
DTD
> > module). This restriction is not present in either HTML 4
> > or XHTML 1.0.  Surely at the very least, the legacy module should
redeclare
> > the content model to be consistent with HTML 4 and XHTML 1.0. I reported
> > this for the PR:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2001JanMar/0035.html
>
> The working group resolved two things with regard to this: 1) we really
> wanted the noframes element to be the last thing in the content model,
> and 2) the legacy module is not intended to reproduce _exactly_ the
> semantics and syntax of earlier versions.

Fair enough, but can I suggest that there should be a publically available
list of all differences between the legacy module and earlier versions.
Given the statements in the intro

"XHTML is the reformulation of HTML 4 as an application of XML"

and

"XHTML Modularization is a decomposition of XHTML 1.0, and by reference HTML
4, into a collection of abstract modules that provide specific types of
functionality."

people will not expect incompatibilities.

James