- From: Tim HEAP <Timothy.Heap@ext.jrc.it>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:31:26 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- CC: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
- Message-ID: <452BA0AE.3010909@ext.jrc.it>
olivier Thereaux wrote: > 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. Yes, that was pretty much the conclusion I had come to. However, when I download the flat DTD from <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11-flat.dtd > it contains: <!ENTITY % style.attlist "INCLUDE" > <![%style.attlist;[ <!ATTLIST %style.qname; %XHTML.xmlns.attrib; %title.attrib; %I18n.attrib; type %ContentType.datatype; #REQUIRED media %MediaDesc.datatype; #IMPLIED xml:space ( preserve ) #FIXED 'preserve' > whereas, the style sheet module at <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-style-1.mod > contains the same element definition, but adds an attribute 'id' (which seems correct, otherwise it would be hard to refer to a style definition, as in, for example, <?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="#Style_internal-0" ?> ): <!ENTITY % style.attlist "INCLUDE" > <![%style.attlist;[ <!ATTLIST %style.qname; %XHTML.xmlns.attrib; %id.attrib; %title.attrib; %I18n.attrib; type %ContentType.datatype; #REQUIRED media %MediaDesc.datatype; #IMPLIED > > 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. The xhtml-style-1.mod file contains a revision date of 2006/07/05, but doesn't list any revisions, which suggests it may have been changed just to correct a typo or minor omission. The same is true for the script module, xhtml-script-1.mod , (and in this case %id.attrib; is indented with a tab rather than just spaces as used in the rest of the file); there may be others. I was guessing that the flat version may not have been regenerated to reflect recent corrections. The validator certainly flags ids on these elements as errors, which doesn't seem correct. I imagine now that the issue doesn't really lie with the validator, which seems to be using the published version of the flat DTD, but rather with the published version of the DTD itself: it was just that the validator was what brought it to my attention. I suppose it's not necessarily a good idea to change the published DTD too often as there is a risk of creating breakage elsewhere, but it does seem slightly strange that the various published versions disagree. Cheers, tim
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:46:38 UTC