- From: Karl Ove Hufthammer <karl@huftis.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 23:19:07 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com> wrote in news:3EC0EB89.5060105@netscape.com: > Second, if XHTML 2.0 is made a little bit for the Web (yeah, I > mean for browsing), what matters is DTD and Schema, not RELAX > NG. Why? I see no reason DTDs and XML Schema are better suited for the task of validating documents. DTDs are certainly much worse. Actually, I see no reason we would even need a DTD for XHTML 2 when there are much better alternatives available. > Sorry but I don't see browsers implement that any time > soon. Well, I used to think validating was an important feature for browsers, but I'm not so sure anymore. Validating is really a *tool* for *authors* to ensure that they produce high-quality documents / technically 'correct' documents / documents that 'make sense'. This doesn't *need* to be implemented in browsers. (Though a iCab style validator would be nice.) And for this purpose, RELAX NG or XML Schema is much better suited. The HTML/XHTML recommendations have many requirements for what a 'correct' HTML/XHTML document must look like. *Some* of these are expressible as a DTD (or DOCTYPE declaration, to be precise). Even more are expressible in XML Schema or a RELAX NG. Thus these schema languages are better suited as means to specifiy syntactically constraints on XHTML 2 documents. SGML/XML DOCTYPE declarations should be allowed to die. > Again, browsers use DTD or Schemas, not RELAX NG. Not any that I know of. Which ones are you thinking of? -- Karl Ove Hufthammer http://blogg.huftis.org/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 17:19:46 UTC