Re: Fieldset content model in XHTML 1.0 Schema

Hello, thank you for your prompt reply.

I think I do understand why the editor made a change in the content model
of fieldset, and the response to my comment was almost what I anticipated.
But, what I wanted to raise in my last comment was this: introducing
different syntax (content model) to an existing document type was very bad
practice.

I agree with the reason why you consider this constraint important, but
strongly disagree to put this in the XHTML 1.0. If the HTML WG thinks some
syntax of XHTML 1.0 have to be modified, it should be proposed as a
different version of the document type.


>This document explicitly states that these Schemas are "informative", and
>this document does not change the normative definition of XHTML 1.0.
>So long as your document meets all the criteria for strictly conforming
>XHTML 1.0 document, your document is syntactically a strictly conforming
>XHTML 1.0 document, whether it's Schema-valid or not.  These XML Schemas

True, but this is quite unhappy for me, and probably for many sincere XHTML
1.0 authors, too. Some (few ?) people try to write valid documents against
existing DTD, and take efforts to promote XHTML among authoring community.
It is very discouraging for them if some of their documents suddenly become
"Schema-invalid" even though they took most care to be "DTD-valid".


>> Since there is a phrase "if present", it seems quite clear that legend
>> element is made optional intentionally, rather than just because of the
>> incapability of DTD mechanism.
>
>No, that's reversing canse and effect.  We had to make it optional
>because of the incapability of DTD mechanism.

I should have written that: 'since there is a phrase "if present", many
author might consider HTML WG decided to change the contend model so as to
make legend element optional'. If HTML WG made this change due to the
incapability of DTD mechanism and want legend be mandatory, the editor
should at least have included the comment about that point.


In short, please do not make double standards (regardless normative or
informative) for the existing document type, and do not discourage us.

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 11:32:31 UTC