Re: WD-xhtml1-20011004: errata: '>' missing in transitionaldtd@+/- 6110

This practice is difficult for the uninitiated to work with. While such
documents should not be used as reference material, they do serve as the
basis for testing and should well be consistent and correct. Or, are
they just for show?

Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
> 
> james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de> wrote:
> 
> > as a related issue, an unfortunate circumstance is that the draft
> > includes in the normative document type declaration the same system
> > identifier as the earlier recommentation. which is neither the erroneous
> > one, nor a corrected one, but the one from the recommendation.
> 
> That's intentional.  As clearly noted in the "status of this document"
> section [2], this document is still a Working Draft and should not be
> used as reference material. When the second edition becomes a
> Recommendation, the latest DTDs can be referenced by the URIs shown
> in the specification.  Until then, those URIs point to the current
> Recommendation version of XHTML 1.0 DTDs.

To defer the document's coherence to the point where it becomes a
recommendation makes no sense. It makes nore sanse to change them in the
transition from draft to recommendation.

> 
> > it would
> > be nice if a corresponding correct dtd were available independent of
> > publication cycles.
> 
> DTDs are available, and can be referenced through "dated" URIs, like:
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml1-20011004/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml1-20011004/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd

which dtd has the same error as the one distributed in the zip file.

>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml1-20011004/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd
> 
> > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2001OctDec/0078
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml1-20011004/#status
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
> W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 04:07:15 UTC