Re: [CSS21] Wider variety of (non-junk) examples requested

On Friday, August 26, 2005, 6:04:50 PM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>BH> So, in http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20050809/ an "example" like
>>
>>BH>   <html:a href="LargeMap.html">
>>BH>     <html:object type="image/svg+xml" data="child.svg"/>
>>BH>   </html:a>
>>
>>BH> is, as you say, "junk"
>>
>>No; I asked (in the part you trimmed immediately after that quote) for a
>>minimal quality level (well formed or valid, depending on whether its
>>SGML or XML). That example meets the minimum (its well formed);

BH> Aha, okay, your "HTML 4 does not have a notion of well formedness or
BH> any lesser criterion than validity" is misleading then, the examples
BH> are legal SGML Text Entities which is a higher level of quality than
BH> "well-formed" as conformance to the document type and link type
BH> declarations are required of such entities.

Thank you. If the fragments are stated in the spec to be legal SGML Text
Entities then that would be satisfactory, although I am only aware of
one CSS-enabled browser that uses an SGML parser.

BH> That's no conformance level of HTML4 though, just like "well-formed
BH> parsed entity" is no conformance level of XHTML. All XHTML and HTML4
BH> conformance levels require a document type declaration.

I would be surprised if XHTML 2 requires a DOCTYPE declaration. However,
conforming to the XHTML specifications, while nice,is more than the
minimum that was asked. feel free to do more than the minimum, as I
mentioned.

BH> So it seems no change is required here, do you agree?

to which example is no change required?


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead

Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 18:29:19 UTC