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

Re: Validating extended XHTML

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:10:31 +0100
Message-ID: <41E7E0E7.6030901@annevankesteren.nl>
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
Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 15:10:52 UTC

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