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

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:
> 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 and scrap the rest”) to which I answered:
[[ The engine is a wonderful piece of software, in many  
ways superior to the other engines which uses.  
However, IMHO is neither stable enough (see e.g 
  ) 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 I am quite certain  
that at this point, having be a frontend for multiple  
engines, including OpenSP for DTD and for html5 and other  
applications, is the most desirable architecture. ]] --

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


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