W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2002

Re: The validator complains about xmlns="..."

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:13:29 +0200
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050100-1014-B8D697F8644A11D6943900039300CF5C@[]>
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

>/Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
>|* Norman Walsh wrote:
>|>I do think it would be a more useful validation service though if it
>|>handled xmlns attributes a little more in the spirit of the Namespaces
>|XHTML 1.0 explicitly says "[a strictly conforming document] must
>|validate against one of the three DTDs found in Appendix A]", so how
>|could the validator be more namespace friendly while staying compatible
>|with the XHTML 1.0 REC?
>Ok. I think that's a bug in the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation.

Hmmm. I think that's actually more a bug in a) your expectations or b) the
XML Namespace Rec. :-)

XHTML Family documents are still being specified in terms of a (set of)
DTD(s). In particular, XHTML 1.0 is specified only in those terms and there
exists no Schema for XHTML 1.0 as yet. In the future we most definitely
need to support XML Namespace and XML Schema, but that won't change the
situation for any currently released Recs that define themselves in terms
of DTDs.

Jumping back to the problem that (probably) prompted this thread. Why do
you say that "The stylesheets require the xmlns on every element"? cf.

Editor's note: in the last update,   we noted that Larry Wall would "vomment"
on existing RFCs. Some took that to be a cross between "vomit" and "comment."
We are unsure of whether it was a subconscious slip or a typographical error.
We are also unsure of whether or not to regret the error.      -- use.perl.org
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 15:19:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:27 UTC