W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2008

Re: "snapshot" XHTML DTD for all current modules?

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 09:43:18 +0900
Cc: mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com, W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9F9D0081-F7FD-466A-B212-EC5328645D8D@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>

Hi Shane,

On 6-May-08, at 1:53 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>  There are LOTS of modules in the xhtml namespace, and many of them  
> conflict with one another.  So there would be no easy way to create  
> a DTD that contained all of the modules.

Ah. I wasn't aware of conflicts between modules. Do you have examples  

>  I think I would look for @version on the html element as a way of  
> guessing which XHTML family markup language was in use.  If there  
> was no @version, and no DOCTYPE..... I don't think I would try to  
> guess.  Instead I would give the users a list of known XHTML Family  
> Markup languages and let the pick.
>  Then, of course, provide a validation error because there MUST be a  
> DOCTYPE declaration.

Is there, today, a document type that at least allows me to use the  
features of ARIA, ITS, and RDFa?

W3C should either provide a document type mixing most interesting  
features of XHTML, or add a conformance level where XHTML can be used  
without a doctype, using only the namespace.

[ Given the need for a DOCTYPE declaration for browsers' standard mode  
at present, I guess the market is currently biased toward the former,  
but both would be useful ]

A situation where one MUST use a doctype but isn't provided with a  
doctype to use all cool features of XHTML is rather counter-productive  
for the adoption of XHTML and its features, don't you think?

Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 00:43:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:08 UTC