- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:10:31 +0100
- To: Jan Egil Kristiansen <janegil@landsbank.fo>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
>>> 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: That is already possible. You do not need validation for that. > Because I want more > semantics than there is in HTML. Rather than giving my geographical > position as the text "62�N 7�W", 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.) Is it not better to store such extra semantics on the server? Current browsers and Google will ignore your "more semantic documents" anyway. > 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. Huh? Can't you better validate on input? Furthermore, if it is about the backend, why not just use RelaxNG? Or XML Schema? > 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.) Is that validation or rendering? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 15:10:52 UTC