- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:23:04 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=800 jacksonj@duq.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Comment #4 from jacksonj@duq.edu 2007-01-05 22:23 ------- The XHTML validator currently complains about the html tag in a document beginning: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> According to http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816 Section 2.1, "An attribute-based declaration syntax is provided to bind prefixes to namespace names and to bind a default namespace that applies to unprefixed element names; these declarations are scoped by the elements on which they appear so that different bindings may apply in different parts of a document. Processors conforming to this specification MUST recognize and act on these declarations and prefixes." This sounds to me (as claimed before by someone else in Comment #2) like the XML Namespaces rec is saying that xmnls and xmlns-prefixed attributes do not need to be included in any ATTLIST of the DTD in order to be valid; they must be recognized. An attribute-based syntax is used, but these are not standard attributes. Think of it this way: if a DTD had an ATTLIST containing the single attribute xmlns:hmm, would that mean that I could include a namespace declaration such as xmnls:hmm="http://www.example.org" but I couldn't use a namespace declaration such as xmlns:duh="http://www.example.com"? Of course not: surely in any document conforming with XML Namespaces I should be able to choose any namespace prefix I want (as long as it isn't reserved). So xmlns:duh must also be a valid attribute. This means that xmlns-prefixed attribute specifications cannot be treated the same way for validation purposes as are normal attributes by looking for them in a DTD. And in light of the quote above, I think that it's clear that xmlns and xmlns-prefixed attributes must be considered valid on every tag in every document conforming with XML Namespaces. So I believe that it is wrong for the XHTML validator to complain about the html tag above as well as about the original markup in the original bug report and that in Comment #2. I don't think that this is a problem with the XHTML/XML/XML Namespaces recommendations, but with how the validator is implementing them.
Received on Friday, 5 January 2007 22:23:16 UTC