- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:05:57 +0900
- To: Tim HEAP <Timothy.Heap@ext.jrc.it>
- Cc: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
Hi Tim, On Oct 7, 2006, at 21:53 , Tim HEAP wrote: > For some reason my password for Bugzilla hasn't arrived, so I'm > sending this by email: Odd, if I remember correctly, you choose your bugzilla password yourself, you don't receive it by email. > > The validator appears to use a superseded DTD for XHTML 1.1 I don't think it does. It uses the DTD from the XHTML 1.1 recommendation, which has not (as far as I know) been updated since its publication in 2001. > > I'm guessing that it uses a copy of > <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11-flat.dtd >, > but the modular version > <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd > > contains updated modules. For example, the style element > defined in > <URL: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-style-1.mod > > has an id attribute which is missing in the flat version, and > which the validator does not accept. The same is true for > script ... As far as I can tell from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11_dtd.html#a_xhtml11_dtd xhtml11-flat.dtd *is* the DTD suggested by the recommendation for validation, and the prose seems to mean that it is equivalent to the modular version. If your analysis is correct, it could mean that there is a mistake in the xhtml11-flat DTD. I am copying in this reply the www-html mailing- list, where I hope experts on HTML will be able to confirm whether or not there is an issue with the DTDs. We can of course change the DTDs the validator uses, but I'd rather make sure that there is no problem with the spec first. Thank you! -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 02:06:09 UTC