- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 23:00:19 +0300
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
- Cc: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
The conformance section of the 2005-05-27 XHTML 2.0 WD gives the following example of an XHTML 2.0 document: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/ http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd" > <head> <title>Virtual Library</title> </head> <body> <p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/">example.org</a>.</p> </body> </html></pre> (I assume the stray </pre> tag is an error in the spec.) The example includes awfully lot of boiler plate cruft. If the implementation experience with XHTML 1.x is any indication, browsers won't need nor use the DTD/XSD references. RELAX NG validation can be used for answering the question "Does this document conform the grammar of XHTML 2.0?" without contaminating the document with schema-specific cruft. The DTD/XSD references serve answering a lot less interesting question: "Does this document conform to the schema it declares itself?" Since neither browsers nor RELAX NG-based quality assurance processes need the DTD/XSD references and DTD and XSD do not provide validation value over RELAX NG, I see no reason why authors would want to include the DTD/XSD cruft unless they are practicing cargo cult authoring and copy whatever is handed to them from above. Therefore, I would like to suggest the following: * Making the RELAX NG schema the only normative schema instead of requiring adherence to three schemas in three schema languages. * Dropping the DTD as legacy technology. * Providing the XSD schema as an informative courtesy to those who have invested in XSD-based solutions and don't want to switch to RELAX NG. * Dropping the SHOULD for doctype. * Dropping the MUST for schemaLocation. * Discouraging the use of a "higher-level protocol" for overriding the encoding sniffing rules of the XML spec. * Making adherence to normative prose that can't be expressed in a formal grammar an explicit component of document conformance. * Not using the term "Strictly Conforming" to imply that there is non-strict conformance without specifying what non-strict conformance is. * Simplifying the example to: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en"> <head> <title>Virtual Library</title> </head> <body> <p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/">example.org</a>.</p> </body> </html> -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Sunday, 29 May 2005 20:00:58 UTC