- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:10:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > > Well, that's what validity means in SGML (and XML). It is much better to > use other words to describe compliance to something else. If you use > "valid" and "validator" in a loose sense, as many people do, then you > will lack an expression to what those words mean the SGML context. You > will not be able to distinguish them from everyone's and his dog's rules > for what is "valid" and what is not. Ok, let me phrase this another way: Why is conformance-to-a-subset-of-the-conformance-requirements-that- happens-to-be-describable-using-a-particular-schema-language a concept that needs its own term? It seems to me that by making such a fuss over conformance to that subset you are diluting the point of conformance to the whole specification. The funniest thing is that using your definition, the following: <a><a>test</a></a> ...is invalid in HTML4, but valid in XHTML1, even though the _only_ reason for this difference is a limitation of the schema language used for XHTML. (XML DTDs don't support inclusions and exclusions). -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 3 January 2004 19:10:36 UTC