W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Role of DTDs in the validator (was: Re: Validating SVG+RDF)

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:21:28 -0400
Cc: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94533BFA-AD3D-4C6E-9142-8E412160152F@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

On 9-Mar-09, at 10:35 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Mar 9, 2009, at 14:49, olivier Thereaux wrote:
>> Not trivial, but feasible. I invite you to review (with the WG) the  
>> validator's development roadmap, which looks into this question:
>> http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/todo.html#roadmap
> I notice that DTD validation is rather prominent in the next gen  
> picture.
> Considering that RELAX NG or RELAX NG plus something else (Java,  
> Schematron) validation exists for HTML 4.01, SVG 1.1 and MathML 2.0  
> and newer specs such as SVG 1.2, HTML 5 and MathML 3.0 either don't  
> have a DTD or have a DTD as the less preferred schema, I wonder what  
> the purpose of DTD-based validation in "next gen" is.

FWIW, there is a related discussion on bugzilla.

Dean Edridge asked a good question (tantamount to “why not just use  
validator.nu and scrap the rest”) to which I answered:
[[ The validator.nu engine is a wonderful piece of software, in many  
ways superior to the other engines which validator.w3.org uses.  
However, IMHO validator.nu is neither stable enough (see e.g http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2009Mar/0037.html 
  ) nor flexible enough (limited number of profiles, no DTD support  
for legacy HTML, etc) nor usable enough (bare bone UI and limited  
message explanations, no file upload, no direct input, etc) to simply  
"be" the sole and front engine on validator.w3.org. I am quite certain  
that at this point, having validator.w3.org be a frontend for multiple  
engines, including OpenSP for DTD and validator.nu for html5 and other  
applications, is the most desirable architecture. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5992#c6

This is just MHO, however, and I do think that the question “which  
engine(s) should validator.w3.org use” should be asked on a regular  
basis in the months/years to come.

Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 22:21:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:12 UTC