Re: Using RELAX NG in XHTML 2.0

Daniel Glazman <> wrote in

> 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

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 17:19:46 UTC