W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Validating extended XHTML

From: Jan Egil Kristiansen <janegil@landsbank.fo>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:43:19 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 19:29 08-12-2004, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>Jan Egil Kristiansen wrote:
>>I'd like a DOCTYPE to make it possible to validate XHTML with well-formed extensions from any other namespace.
>>See http://styrheim.weblogg.no/081204103845_the_x_in_xhtml.html
>Why would you need this? When you are sending XHTML with the proper MIME
>type the browser can give you feedback.

1) Why I want to use well-formed extensions:
Because I want more semantics than there is in HTML. Rather than giving my geographical position as the text "62N 7W", I'd like to use 
<geo:lat>62</geo:lat><geo:long>-7</geo:long>. (I will control visibility with CSS display or XSLT transformation.)

2) Why I want the extensions validated:
Because my blog interface will validate; if my entry doesn't validate, the it will be converted from XHTML fo HTML. Presently, I've had to hack the positon of http://styrheim.weblogg.no/091004174407_gosars__grind.html with a CDATA section, which is plain wrong. Fortunately, http://www.mapbureau.com/blogmapper/v1.php?content=http://qajaq.weblogg.no/index.rss&ctype=rss2&basemap=http://www.mapbureau.com/basemaps/croppedworld2.0.xml reads this as a position, even inside the CDATA section.

I also find this kind of validation logical, because it matches the standard behaviour of even strict HTML browsers: Ignore unknown tags, but use the content of unknown elements. (I am pleased to note that the Open Office XML format, 1.5 Document Processing and Conformance in http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10765/office-spec-1.0-cd-2.pdf suggests this kind of validation.)

Jan Egil Kristiansen
Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 15:01:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:55 UTC