W3C

XHTML 1.1 Second Edition PER Disposition of Comments

19 September 2009

This version:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/xhtml11-per-doc-20090916.html
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml11-per-doc.html
Editors:
Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.

Abstract

This note outlines the way in which the XHTML 2 Working Group addressed the various comments submitted against the XHTML 1.1 Recommendation from 31 May 2001.

Status of this document

After the publication of the XHTML 1.1 Recommendation, a number of comments were received from both inside and outside of the W3C. This document summarizes those comments and describes the ways in which the comments were addressed by the XHTML 2 Working Group.

Note that the majority of this document is automatically generated from the Working Group's database of comments. As such, it may contain typographical or stylistic errors. If so, these are contained in the original submissions, and the XHTML 2 Working Group elected to not change these submissions.

This document is a Note of the W3C's XHTML 2 Working Group. This Note may be updated, replaced or rendered obsolete by other W3C documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Notes as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". This document is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by the W3C membership.

This document has been produced by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group as part of the HTML Activity. The goals of the XHTML 2 Working Group are discussed in the XHTML 2 Working Group charter.

Please send detailed comments on this document to www-html-editor@w3.org. We cannot guarantee a personal response, but we will try when it is appropriate. Public discussion on HTML features takes place on the mailing list www-html@w3.org.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.

Table of Contents

IssueWorking Group ActionCommentor PositionChange TypeNotes
8617: id Attribue For script Tag Accept Agree Substantive This is a M12N issue, but has been fixed by building against the latest version of M12N.
8840: XHTML M12N/XHTML 1.1: Nesting rules Reject No Response None XHTML 1.1 references the XHTML M12N and Ruby Recommendations. Those Recommendations define content models using an abstract content model grammar, and these examples are specifically excluded already. While the underlying schema(s) may not be able to enforce these exclusions because of limitations in their grammars, the restrictions are nontheless normative.
6242: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1 Accept Agree N/A This was not really an issue with XHTML 1.1 - it was an issue with M12N. This is automatically fixed by building against the updated XHTML M12N.
587: Change request of XHTML 1.1 DTD: use absolute URIs for Entities which are referenced from different base hrefs than the declaring document Reject No Response None The group resolved to NOT implement this change, since we do not make changes only to work around bugs in implementations.
614: XHTML 1.1 - http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-special.ent Accept Agree Substantive This is a comment against M12N, not against XHTML 1.1. It was fixed in M12N Second Edition.
8341: (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li> Reject No Response None This is a request to loosen the definition of UL and is a comment on M12N, not on XHTML 1.1. Since XHTML 1.1 is based upon XHTML 1.0 strict we do not want to loosen this. We will consider loosening this requirement for XHTML 2.
656: Re: About disappearance of PE "Color.datatype" in XHTML 1.1 flat Accept Agree Editorial This will be automatically addressed when the final flat version for Second Edition is generated.
10215: xhtml11-flat.dtd corrupted in ZIP and TGZ downloads Accept Agree None Fixed.
472: Re: Errata in/comments on XHTML 1.1 Accept No Response Editorial These have been fixed.
9716: XHTML 1.1 media types Modify and Accept No Response Substantive The working group agreed that the media type SHOULD be application/xhtml+xml. The group did NOT agree that we add the restriction about the document type text/html not being used because a document author may need to make that compromise. The working group does not believe the specification should prevent an author from making this compromise.
489: error in XHTML1.1 source Accept No Response Editorial This is fixed.
478: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Modify and Accept No Response Editorial This is an editorial issue with naming in XHTML Modularization. We can't change the names at this point. XHTML 1.1 needs to map correctly to M12N.
469: Errata in XHTML 1.1 Accept No Response Editorial These items have been corrected.
584: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Error Accept No Response Editorial Fixed.
6288: Error? in XHTML 1.1 Appendix B. Accept No Response Editorial Fixed so XMLNAMES is normative reference AND we are referencing second edition.
6933: XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML [#2] Accept No Response Editorial Went through the document and ensured uppercase and annotations were used when an assertion was actually an assertion.
582: More error in XHTML 1.1 Reject No Response N/A Fixed editorial issue. However, we are not making changes to the language at this time, so we are not introducing @target. If @target is not in the language, having @href as REQUIRED is appropriate. Moreover, we inherit the rule from XHTML Modularization. We will consider relaxing this requirement via Modularization in a future edition. We will consider your comments on the form element and @action in the context of XHTML 2.0.
9609: XHTML 1.1 does not define media type Accept No Response N/A Fixed
651: XHTML 1.1 with namespaces enabled? Accept No Response Editorial This was a comment. We changed the conformance language so it says the local part of the root element must be html.
10217: XHTML 1.1 spec: lang and xml:lang Reject No Response None @lang is not deprecated, and no, it does not need to be included in the module in XHTML M12N. We have chosen to incorporate it into XHTML 1.1 because several groups have demonstrated a need for it. The rules specified describe the relationship between @lang and @xml:lang.

1. XHTML-1.1-DTDs

This section describes issues relating to the DTD implementation of XHTML 1.1.

1.1 id Attribue For script Tag

PROBLEM ID: 8617

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  This is a M12N  issue, but has been fixed by building against the latest
  version
  of M12N.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:39:32 +0900 (JST)
  From: "Grant Husbands" <www-html-editor@grant.x43.net>
  
  From: "Grant Husbands" <www-html-editor@grant.x43.net>
  To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
  Subject: id Attribue For script Tag
  Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:01:50 +0100
  Message-ID: <000f01c48a0c$cfb32000$be64a8c0@bwsint.com>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/000f01c48a0c$cfb32000$be64a8c0@bwsint.com
  
  Hi,
  
  I've recently been validating a document that has an id attribute on a
  script tag. According to the XHTML 1.0 DTD, that seems to be valid.
  According to the XHTML 1.1 DTD, it does not seem to be valid. However,
  Appendix A in XHTML 1.1 does not list the removal of that id as a change
  from XHTML 1.0. Also, two of the four validators that I've tried (Page Valet
  and ARealValidator) claim that id isn't a valid attribute of script, anyway,
  regardless of the XHTML DTD used (I've e-mailed the authors of those,
  separately).
  
  The id for the script in the page I'm validating is going to be removed,
  because it's not very useful, but XHTML 1.1 would seem to be in error in
  removing that attribute, according to its own appendix.
  
  Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
  
  Regards,
  Grant Husbands.
  

1.2 XHTML M12N/XHTML 1.1: Nesting rules

PROBLEM ID: 8840

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  XHTML 1.1 references the XHTML M12N and Ruby Recommendations.  Those
  Recommendations define content models using an abstract content model grammar,
  and these examples are specifically excluded already.  While the underlying
  schema(s) may not be able to enforce these exclusions because of limitations in
  their grammars, the restrictions are nontheless normative.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:40:19 +0900 (JST)
  From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  
  From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: XHTML M12N/XHTML 1.1: Nesting rules
  Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 05:35:10 +0100
  Message-ID: <41a319d6.112696718@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/41a319d6.112696718@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de
  
  Dear HyperText Markup Language Working Group,
  
    It is not clear from the XHTML 1.1 Recommendations whether
  
    <form><div><form>...
  
  or
  
    <pre><span><ruby>...
  
  are allowed, since 
  
    <pre><ruby>...
  
  is not allowed it seems inconsistent to allow <pre><span><ruby>, for
  <form><div><form> this would be inconsistent with XHTML 1.0, please
  clarify this in the XHTML M12N SE WD and the XHTML 1.1 Errata.
  
  regards.
  

REPLY 1:


  From: Shane McCarron <voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com>
  Date: Tue Jun  2 15:37:56 2009
  
  XHTML 1.1 references the XHTML M12N and Ruby Recommendations.  Those
  Recommendations define content models using an abstract content model grammar,
  and these examples are specifically excluded already.  While the underlying
  schema(s) may not be able to enforce these exclusions because of limitations in
  their grammars, the restrictions are nontheless normative.
  
  > Dear HyperText Markup Language Working Group,
  > 
  >   It is not clear from the XHTML 1.1 Recommendations whether
  > 
  >   <form><div><form>...
  > 
  > or
  > 
  >   <pre><span><ruby>...
  > 
  > are allowed, since 
  > 
  >   <pre><ruby>...
  > 
  > is not allowed it seems inconsistent to allow <pre><span><ruby>, for
  > <form><div><form> this would be inconsistent with XHTML 1.0, please
  > clarify this in the XHTML M12N SE WD and the XHTML 1.1 Errata.
  > 
  > regards.
  > 
  > 

1.3 id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1

PROBLEM ID: 6242

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  This was not really an issue with XHTML 1.1 - it was an issue with M12N.  This
  is automatically fixed by building against the updated XHTML M12N.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:40:47 +0900 (JST)
  From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Christoph_P=E4per?= <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
  
  From: Christoph P舊er <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1
  Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:26:24 +0100
  Message-ID: <oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost
  
  Hi,
  
  IIRC the id attribute for the style element was added to XHTML 1.0 in its 
  Second Edition (2002-08-01). It, however, doesn't appear neither in XHTML 
  1.1 DTD nor in its Errata nor in Appendix A. "Changes from XHTML 1.0 
  Strict" (2001-05-31). Thus it's impossible to validly link from xml- 
  stylesheet PIs to internal styles. I think this should at least be added to 
  Errata.
  
  Christoph P舊er

FOLLOWUP 1:


  From: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
  Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:04:17 +0100
  
  Thanks, you are right.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  Steven Pemberton
  
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
  To: <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
  Cc: <voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com>
  Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:40 AM
  Subject: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1 (PR#6242)
  
  
  >
  > From: Christoph P舊er <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
  > To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  > Subject: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1
  > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:26:24 +0100
  > Message-ID: <oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost>
  > X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost
  >
  > Hi,
  >
  > IIRC the id attribute for the style element was added to XHTML 1.0 in its
  > Second Edition (2002-08-01). It, however, doesn't appear neither in XHTML
  > 1.1 DTD nor in its Errata nor in Appendix A. "Changes from XHTML 1.0
  > Strict" (2001-05-31). Thus it's impossible to validly link from xml-
  > stylesheet PIs to internal styles. I think this should at least be added
  to
  > Errata.
  >
  > Christoph P舊er
  >
  >
  

1.4 Change request of XHTML 1.1 DTD: use absolute URIs for Entities which are referenced from different base hrefs than the declaring document

PROBLEM ID: 587

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  The group resolved to NOT implement this change, since we do not make changes
  only to work around bugs in implementations.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:17:10 +0900 (JST)
  From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>(by way of "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>)
  
  From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
  To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
  Subject: Change request of XHTML 1.1 DTD: use absolute URIs for Entities which are referenced from different base hrefs than the declaring document
  Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:50:32 +0200
  Message-ID: <000101c13dfe$26feb9e0$b18f9b3e@andromeda>
  
  Dear HTML Editors,
  
  I request a small change in the DTD for XHTML 1.1. The change would not
  change the structure or semantics, I only request to change a relative URI
  into an absolute one.
  
  When using XHTML 1.1 with current XML software, many parsers won't process
  the XHTML 1.1 but abort with an error message. The reason, of course,
  resides in errors in the parsers, not in the DTD files of XHTML 1.1 / XHTML
  Modularization.
  
  At least one parser, AElfred, which is used by the famous saxon XSLT
  processor, probably the most popular XSLT processor, has a serious bug.
  
  When using AElfred, I get the following error:
  > Transformation failed: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
  > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod
  
  The reason is:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd *declares* this Entity:
  <!ENTITY % xhtml-model.mod PUBLIC
  	"-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML 1.1 Document Model 1.0//EN"
  	"xhtml11-model-1.mod"
  >
  (contains relative URI: xhtml11-model-1.mod)
  
  And http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-framework-1.mod
  *references* this Entity:
  <!ENTITY % xhtml-model.module "INCLUDE" >
  <![%xhtml-model.module;[
  	<!-- instantiate the Document Model module declared in the DTD driver -->
  	%xhtml-model.mod;
  ]]>
  (changed formatting of both citations for readability)
  
  >From the XML Recommendation:
  "Unless otherwise provided by information outside the scope of
  this specification (e.g. a special XML element type defined by a particular
  DTD, or a processing instruction defined by a particular application
  specification),
  relative URIs are relative to the location of the resource within which the
  entity declaration occurs."
  
  Means *declaration*, not *reference*.
  
  But AElfred resolves the URI of the external parsed entity "xhtml-model.mod"
  at the *reference* the entity, not at the *declaration* of the entity.
  
  So this is what AElfred resolves:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod
  And this is what conforming XML Parsers must resolve:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod
  
  So AElfred, at least the version used by saxon, has a bug.
  
  
  Since more XML Parsers and software based on them might have this bug,
  there's a hint on that on the www-html@w3.org mailing list, and since it
  will take some time until these bugs are fixed, I suggest, that the HTML
  working group changes the URI of the drivers to be absolute URLs.
  
  I suggest changing
  <!ENTITY % xhtml-model.mod PUBLIC
  	"-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML 1.1 Document Model 1.0//EN"
  	"xhtml11-model-1.mod"
  >
  to
  <!ENTITY % xhtml-model.mod PUBLIC
  	"-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML 1.1 Document Model 1.0//EN"
  	"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod"
  >
  in file http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd.
  
  I have *not* checked wether this is the only external parsed entity that
  requires a change of it's URI to work with buggy XML parsers.
  
  Nearly all other URIs already are absolute URLs, especially those
  referencing XHTML Modularization. I really do not think, that this change
  would have any side effects.
  
  Greetings
  
  --
  ITCQIS GmbH
  Information Technology Consulting, Qualifying and Individual Solutions
  Christian Wolfgang Hujer
  Geschftsfhrender Gesellschafter
  Tel: +49 (0)89 - 27370437
  Fax: +49 (0)89 - 27370439
  E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
  WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/

1.5 XHTML 1.1 - http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-special.ent

PROBLEM ID: 614

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  This is a comment against M12N, not against XHTML 1.1.  It was fixed in M12N
  Second Edition.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:25:15 +0900 (JST)
  From: Jens Quade <jq@jquade.de>
  
  From: Jens Quade <jq@jquade.de>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: XHTML 1.1 -  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-special.ent
  Date: 17 Oct 2001 15:20:56 +0200
  Message-ID: <m3n12qmmh3.fsf@sahne.intra.jquade.de>
  
  Hi,
  
  I just want you to note that the DTD fragment 
  (ISO special entities for XHTML Modularization)
  contains two lines that may create broken XML if entity replacement 
  is applied on XHTML-1.1 documents:
  
  <!-- C0 Controls and Basic Latin -->
  <!ENTITY lt      "&#38;&#60;" ><!-- less-than sign, U+003C ISOnum -->
  <!ENTITY gt      "&#62;" ><!-- greater-than sign, U+003E ISOnum -->
  <!ENTITY amp     "&#38;&#38;" ><!-- ampersand, U+0026 ISOnum -->
  
  &lt; will be replaced by &< instead of &#60;
  &amp; will be replaced by && instead of &#38;
  
  Will this bug be fixed "in-place", or should I overwrite the corresponding
  entity in my DTDs with another version of the file?
  
  regards,
  jens
  
  
  
  

1.6 (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li>

PROBLEM ID: 8341

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  This is a request to loosen the definition of UL and is a comment on M12N, not
  on XHTML 1.1.  Since XHTML 1.1 is based upon
  XHTML 1.0 strict we do not want to loosen this.  We will consider loosening
  this
  requirement for XHTML 2.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:13:40 +0900 (JST)
  From: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
  
  From: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li>
  Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:46:17 +0200
  Message-ID: <40BDDA29.5000908@seznam.cz>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/40BDDA29.5000908@seznam.cz
  
  I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD:
  
  <!ELEMENT ul (li)+>
  
  I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for 
  practical use, you could have this problem.
  
  Some script:
  <ul>
      <loop><li>some row</li></loop>
  </ul>
  
  There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data and 
  you will get this results:
  
  <ul></ul>
  
  I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no 
  problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not?
  
  //Martin Konicek
  

FOLLOWUP 1:


  Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:24:16 +0900 (JST)
  From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
  
  From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
  To: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
  Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: Re: (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li>
  Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:19:09 -0400
  Message-ID: <40BE0C0D.8060302@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/40BE0C0D.8060302@bacon.qcc.mass.edu
  
  Martin Konicek wrote:
  
  >
  > I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD:
  >
  > <!ELEMENT ul (li)+>
  >
  > I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for 
  > practical use, you could have this problem.
  >
  > Some script:
  > <ul>
  >    <loop><li>some row</li></loop>
  > </ul>
  >
  > There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data 
  > and you will get this results:
  >
  > <ul></ul>
  >
  > I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no 
  > problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not?
  >
  > //Martin Konicek
  >
  >
  if you want to do a loop in a script set a class on the looped 
  attribute(s) and go that way, I see no point in loosening <ul> for a 
  "hey this might be possible"
  
  Plus, what would you say <ul></ul> (or more specific in XHTML <ul />) 
  would do...to me it would be a headache for any speach processor, and 
  just stuck there openly would be hard to STRUCTURELY accept.
  
  you need at least one list-item in a [unordered]-List, you can't really 
  call it a list without at least one item, can you (imho it should 
  restrict to at least two items, but thats just me).
  
  ~Justin Wood
  

REPLY 1:


  From: Shane McCarron <voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com>
  Date: Tue Jun  2 15:44:34 2009
  
  Martin,
  
  This is a request to loosen the definition of UL and is a comment on M12N, not
  on XHTML 1.1.  However, since XHTML 1.1 is based upon XHTML 1.0 strict we do not
  want to loosen this.  We will consider loosening this requirement for XHTML 2.
  
  
  > I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD:
  > 
  > <!ELEMENT ul (li)+>
  > 
  > I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for 
  > practical use, you could have this problem.
  > 
  > Some script:
  > <ul>
  >     <loop><li>some row</li></loop>
  > </ul>
  > 
  > There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data and 
  > you will get this results:
  > 
  > <ul></ul>
  > 
  > I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no 
  > problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not?
  > 
  > //Martin Konicek
  > 
  > 

1.7 Re: About disappearance of PE "Color.datatype" in XHTML 1.1 flat

PROBLEM ID: 656

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  This will be automatically addressed when the final flat version for Second
  Edition is generated.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:22:21 +0900 (JST)
  From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
  
  Just to follow-up why this happened ...
  
  pastelsbadges@nyc.odn.ne.jp wrote:
  
  > XHTML 1.1 DTD (not flat) is including "xhtml-datatypes-1.mod",
  > and parameter entity "Color.datatype" is defined in this module.
  > In XHTML 1.1 flat DTD, however, the parameter entity declaration of
  > "Color.datatype" disappears. Is this an eratta?
  
  It seems the "flat" DTD used revision 4.0 of DTD modules, which was
  the latest version at the time XHTML 1.1 PR was published on 6 April 2001.
  REC version of DTD modules (published on 10 April 2001) were revision 4.1,
  and %Color.datatype; bug was fixed between these revisions, per PR#431 [1].
  We didn't regenerate the "flat" DTD when we published XHTML 1.1 REC,
  though, as Shane said, this doesn't really affect XHTML 1.1 per se.
  
  [1] http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-text?id=431;user=guest;selectid=431
  
  Regards,
  -- 
  Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
  W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

1.8 xhtml11-flat.dtd corrupted in ZIP and TGZ downloads

PROBLEM ID: 10215

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree

NOTES:

  Fixed.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: "Christian Roth" <roth@visualclick.de>
  Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 02:09:24 +0200
  
  Hello,
  
  it looks like the file
  
  /DTD/xhtml11-flat.dtd
  
  in both of the downloads from
  
  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.zip>
    and
  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.tgz>
  
  is corrupt. It has text "]><html><head><title>title</title></
  head><body><p>text</p></body></html>" at its very end, and an XML parser
  reports the file to be an invalid DTD file.
  
  Kind regards
  Christian Roth
  
  

2. XHTML-1.1-text

This section describes issues relating to the prose in XHTML 1.1.

2.1 Re: Errata in/comments on XHTML 1.1

PROBLEM ID: 472

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  These have been fixed.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:11:40 +0900
  
  From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Errata in/comments on XHTML 1.1
  Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 06:46:24 +0200
  Message-ID: <894mht4efa6fp7ic8513bvgpk7sunrrv2s@4ax.com>
  
  section 3:
  
    There is no statement what the asterisk denotes; there should be a
  paragraph ala
  
    "(*) = This module is a required XHTML Host Language module."
  
  section 2.1.1:
  
    I've never heard the term "namespace designator" and XML Namespaces
  doesn't define it; I think it's unwise to use this term, 'namespace URI'
  would be more appropriate.
  
  regards,
  -- 
  Bjrn Hhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
  am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
  25899 Dagebll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
  

2.2 XHTML 1.1 media types

PROBLEM ID: 9716

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  The working group agreed that the media type SHOULD be application/xhtml+xml. 
  The group did NOT agree that we add the restriction about the document type
  text/html not being used because a document author may need to make that
  compromise.  The working group does not believe the specification should prevent
  an author from making this compromise.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:05:27 -0000
  From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
  
  
   From the new working draft of XHTML 1.1:
  
  > XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled withthe Internet Media Type  
  > text/html as defined
  > in [RFC2854]
  
  Which says:
  
         In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use
         of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and
         which may also be labeled as text/html.
  
  ... making no mention of XHTML 1.1.
  
  > or application/xhtml+xml as definedin [RFC3236]. For further information  
  > on using
  > media types with XHTML, see the informative
  > note [XHTMLMIME].
  
  Which says:
  
         In general, this media type is NOT suitable for
         XHTML.
  
  and
  
         The use of 'text/html' for XHTML SHOULD be limited
         for the purpose of rendering on existing HTML user
         agents, and SHOULD be limited to [XHTML1] documents
         which follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines.
  
  and to paraphrase the summary tables:
  
         XHTML 1.1 SHOULD NOT be served as text/html
  
  Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby  
  annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little  
  point in allowing it to be served as text/html.
  
  I propose the following change:
  
  XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type  
  application/xhtml+xml as defined in [RFC3236]. They SHOULD NOT be labeled  
  with the Internet Media Type text/html as defined in [RFC2854]. For  
  further information on using media types with XHTML, see the informative  
  note [XHTMLMIME].
  
  -- 
  David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
  

2.3 error in XHTML1.1 source

PROBLEM ID: 489

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  This is fixed.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: "Max Froumentin" <mf@w3.org>
  Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:39:41 +0900
  
  From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: error in XHTML1.1 source 
  Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:26:40 +0200
  Message-ID: <87hew0oof3.fsf@sophia.inria.fr>
  
  In http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html the xml-stylesheet PIs
  are within <html>, next to the <link> elements, but [1] says that they
  are only allowed in the prolog of the document.
  
  Max.
  
  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/
  

FOLLOWUP 1:


  From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
  Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:34:02 +0900
  
  [ Note: basically mentioning the same issue as PR#489, just for the record ]
  
  From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Cc: www-validator@w3.org, maxf@w3.org
  Subject: xml-stylesheet PI
  Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:35:56 +0200
  Message-Id: <p05100331b784bb934660@[193.51.208.147]>
  
  Dear XHTML 1.1 editors,
  
  In the document XHTML 1.1 Recommendation [1]
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531
  
  We can read in the source code:
  ...................................................................
  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" 
  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  <head>
  <meta name="generator" content="HTML Tidy, see www.w3.org" />
  <title>XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML</title>
  <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="xhtml.css" />
  <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" 
  href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-REC" />
  <?xml-stylesheet href="xhtml.css" type="text/css" media="screen" ?>
  <?xml-stylesheet
  href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-REC" type="text/css" 
  media="screen" ?>
  <link rel="next" type="text/html" href="introduction.html" />
  ...................................................................
  
  
  But the Recommendation Associating stylesheets with XML documents [2] says:
  
  ........
  The xml-stylesheet processing instruction is allowed only in the 
  prolog of an XML document. The syntax of XML constrains where 
  processing instructions are allowed in the prolog; the xml-stylesheet 
  processing instruction is allowed anywhere in the prolog that meets 
  these constraints.
  ........
  
  So when the document is passed to the HTML validator [3], it is valid 
  against the XHTML 1.1 DTD but not against this Recommendation [2]. I 
  don't know if it's something the HTML Validator should check in the 
  future.
  
  Modularization of XHTML [4] seems to have the same problem.
  
  
  
  PS: Thanks to Max Froumentin, W3C, to have discovered the problem.
  
  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531
  [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/
  [3] http://validator.w3.org/
  [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410
  -- 
  Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
             http://www.w3.org/QA/
  
        --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
  

FOLLOWUP 2:


  Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:18:00 +0200
  From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
  
  At 17:34 +0900 2001-07-26, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
  >[ Note: basically mentioning the same issue as PR#489, just for the record ]
  
  Thanks Mimasa ;-)
  
  -- 
  Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
             http://www.w3.org/QA/
  
        --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---

2.4 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html

PROBLEM ID: 478

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  This is an editorial issue with naming in XHTML Modularization.  We can't
  change
  the names at this point.  XHTML 1.1 needs to map correctly to M12N.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>
  Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:30:35 +0900
  
  From: wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html
  Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:45:53 -0500
  Message-ID: <3B2FBA01.BA1B57C7@winternet.com>
  
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html
  
  Probably should be Tables Module (xhtml-mod) and not Table Module.
  
  Anchor is non-plural too.  *shrug*  Best wishes!
  

2.5 Errata in XHTML 1.1

PROBLEM ID: 469

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  These items have been corrected.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:42:44 +0900
  
  From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Cc: www-html@w3.org
  Subject: Errata in XHTML 1.1
  Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 04:42:29 +0200
  Message-ID: <koudht87ec1409591t0mtm7me4p573tdne@4ax.com>
  
  Hi,
  
  Referring to http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531
  
  Section 3:
  
    there is an unmatched bracket in the second paragraph.
  
    the last module is introduced via "XHTML also uses the Ruby Annotation
    module as defined in [RUBY]". Since e.g. XHTML 1.0 doesn't use this
    module, it should the "XHTML 1.1 also ..." or "The XHTML 1.1 document
    type"
  
  Section 2.1.1:
  
    the last paragraph states (as in XHTML 1.0) about the XML declaration:
    "Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the
     document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16." 
  
    According to Philippe Le Hegaret this is wrong and subject for the XML
    1.0 SE errata. The sentence should be
  
    "Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the
     document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16 and no encoding 
     was determined by a higher-level protocol."
  
    I reported this to xml-editor@w3.org but got no reply till today.
    Maybe this should be discussed with the XML WG and corrected in
    XHTML 1.0 Second Edition.
  
  appendix b.1:
  
    Why has the normative reference to ISO 8879:1986 (SGML) been commented
    out?
  
  general:
  
    several passages use element tt where they should use code.
  -- 
  Bjrn Hhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
  am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
  25899 Dagebll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
  

2.6 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Error

PROBLEM ID: 584

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  Fixed.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 03:54:29 +0900 (JST)
  From: Christian Hujer <Christian@hujer.com>(by way of "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>)
  
  From: Christian Hujer <Christian@hujer.com>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Error
  Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:34:44 +0200
  Message-ID: <15cVnh-1MBRJIC@fmrl00.sul.t-online.com>
  
  Hello,
  
  In section 3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type
  
  The module for the table elements is named "Table Module". The name of the module is wrong. The correct name of the module is "Tables Module" (I think the module name in XHTML-Modularization is the normative 
  module name).
  
  Greetings
  
  Christian Wolfgang Hujer
  

FOLLOWUP 1:


  Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:30:52 +0900 (JST)
  From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
  
  From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
  To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
  Subject: Riding on an 'S' (Was: Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Error)
  Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 19:01:29 +0100
  Message-ID: <000101c17e80$07ceedc0$818f9b3e@andromedacwh>
  
  Dear HTML issue tracking system,
  
  
  On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, I wrote:
  > Hello,
  >
  > In section 3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type
  >
  > The module for the table elements is named "Table Module". The name of the
  > module is wrong. The correct name of the module is "Tables Module" (I
  think the
  > module name in XHTML-Modularization is the normative
  > module name).
  >
  > Greetings
  >
  > Christian Wolfgang Hujer
  
  This message is still in the incoming folder. I think this mainly is the
  case because most might think "this is just an s, what's the point?!".
  
  
  I explain.
  
  I am writing a documentation about HTML. This documentation shall document
  all elements and attributes of all official and unofficial HTML versions
  including their support in many browsers and their versions (at least 30).
  
  For newer, XHTML Modularization based, HTML versions, I wrote an XML
  document, which refers to the modules by their name. resulting document,
  which transforms the module selection document to a complete HTML version
  description by merging with module description documents, did not contain
  the expected table elements, because there was no module named "Table
  Module". It failed just because of that small missing "s".
  
  
  So sometimes, it's not a human, that works with a recommendation, sometimes
  its a machine. That's why I desire not just correct but identical spelling
  ;)
  
  
  And last but not least I want to thank the W3C for the great work and hope
  that XHTML Schemata will soon be available.
  
  
  Greetings
  
  Christian Hujer

2.7 Error? in XHTML 1.1 Appendix B.

PROBLEM ID: 6288

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  Fixed so XMLNAMES is normative reference AND we are referencing second edition.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:08:52 +0900 (JST)
  From: Satoshi ISHIKAWA <satoshii@math.oheya.to>
  
  From: Satoshi ISHIKAWA <satoshii@math.oheya.to>
  To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
  Subject: Error? in XHTML 1.1 Appendix B.
  Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:18:21 +0900
  Message-ID: <BA8C0C0D.10AF%satoshii@math.oheya.to>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/BA8C0C0D.10AF%satoshii@math.oheya.to
  
  Hi,
  
  In Appendix B of XHTML 1.1 [XHTML11], Namespace in XML [XMLNAMES]
  is described as an informative reference. But Modularization of XHTML
  [XHTMLMOD] is a normative reference of [XHTML11], and [XMLNAMES] is
  also a normative reference of [XHTMLMOD].
  
  i.e. 
  
  [XHTML11] +----------------- (informative) ---------------+--> [XMLNAMES]
            |                                               |
            +-- (normative) --> [XHTMLMOD] -- (normative) --+
  
  
  This is a little confused. Therefore, [XMLNAMES] as a reference of
  [XHTML11] should be changed to normative as well as of [XHTMLMOD].
  
  
  [XHTML11]  http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/
  [XHTMLMOD] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/
  [XMLNAMES] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
  
  Regards,
  -- 
  Satoshi ISHIKAWA / satoshii@math.oheya.to
  http://math.oheya.to/markup/

2.8 XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML [#2]

PROBLEM ID: 6933

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  Went through the document and ensured uppercase and annotations were used when
  an assertion was actually an assertion.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:07:10 +0900 (JST)
  From: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
  
  From: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Cc: Olle Olsson <olleo@w3.org>
  Subject: XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML [#2]
  Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:32:00 +0200
  Message-ID: <3F61D8E0.5060108@sics.se>
  X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/3F61D8E0.5060108@sics.se
  
  [ This was sent to www-html, but it is more appropriate to 
  www-html-editor /olle ]
  
  Hi,
  
  I would like to have a minor issue clarified.
  
  In "XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML" (W3C REC 31 May 2001, 
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ ), in section 2, "Conformance 
  Definition",  (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html) we find, 
  in the introduction, the following statement:
  
  <excerpt>
  The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
  "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to 
  be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
  </excerpt>
  
  This wording  confused me, as I do not see any occurrences of uppercase 
  "MUST", etc. in the REC. Two possible interpretations:
  
  (1) "well, no harm putting this statement in the doc, event though it 
  does not apply to anything there."
  
  (2) "actually, this statement refers to _all_ occurrences of "must", 
  etc.,  in lower case as well as any other "cased" variants thereof."
  
  If the second alternative is the correct one, then one has to be very 
  careful when reading the REC. It of easy to regard "shall" as nice 
  syntactic sugar in the language, while "SHALL" definitely raises a 
  warning flag.
  
  I would be thankful for a clarification of how the excerpt reproduced 
  above applies to this REC.
  
  regards,
  
  
  /olle
  
  -- 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  Olle Olsson   olleo@sics.se   Tel: +46 8 633 15 19  Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
  	[Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org]
  SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science]
  Box 1263
  SE - 164 29 Kista
  Sweden
  ------------------------------------------------------------------

2.9 More error in XHTML 1.1

PROBLEM ID: 582

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  Fixed editorial issue.  However, we are not making changes to the language at
  this time, so we are not introducing @target.  If @target is not in the
  language, having @href as REQUIRED is appropriate.  Moreover, we inherit the
  rule from XHTML Modularization.  We will consider relaxing this requirement via
  Modularization in a future edition. 
  
  We will consider your comments on the form element and @action in the context of
  XHTML 2.0.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 00:51:03 +0900 (JST)
  From: Christian Hujer <Christian@hujer.com>(by way of "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>)
  
  From: Christian Hujer <Christian@hujer.com>
  To: www-html-editor@w3.org
  Subject: More error in XHTML 1.1
  Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:34:17 +0200
  Message-ID: <15ckmJ-0MzVXEC@fmrl00.sul.t-online.com>
  
  Hello,
  
  In Section 3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type,
  
  the module for the script element is named "Stylesheet Module". XHTML Modularization calls this module "Style Sheet Module".
  
  
  On the base element:
  
  In HTML 4.01, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #REQUIRED.
  In XHTML 1.0, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #IMPLIED.
  In XHTML 1.1, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #REQUIRED.
  
  I think, #IMPLIED is correct, because it should be able to use <base target="frame2" /> when the Frames Module is used.
  
  On the form element:
  
  The action attribute is required. I think it should be implied, and the user agent must use the URI containing the form element as destination for submitting the form when there is no action parameter.
  Anyway, action is a bad name for that attribute since it has similar semantics as href in a, base and link and src in img and ... (object, applet...). But I think this will change for the better in XHTML 2.0 when making use 
  of XML Base, XML Linking, XPointer etc..
  
  Greetings
  
  Christian Hujer

REPLY 1:


  From: Shane McCarron <voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com>
  Date: Wed Jun 10 14:21:15 2009
  
  Christian,
  
  Fixed editorial issue.  However, we are not making changes to the language at
  this time, so we are not introducing @target.  If @target is not in the
  language, having @href as REQUIRED is appropriate.  Moreover, we inherit the
  rule from XHTML Modularization.  We will consider relaxing this requirement via
  Modularization in a future edition. 
  
  We will consider your comments on the form element and @action in the context of
  XHTML 2.0.
  
  
  > 
  > Hello,
  > 
  > In Section 3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type,
  > 
  > the module for the script element is named "Stylesheet Module". XHTML
  > Modularization calls this module "Style Sheet Module".
  > 
  > 
  > On the base element:
  > 
  > In HTML 4.01, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #REQUIRED.
  > In XHTML 1.0, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #IMPLIED.
  > In XHTML 1.1, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #REQUIRED.
  > 
  > I think, #IMPLIED is correct, because it should be able to use <base
  > target="frame2" /> when the Frames Module is used.
  > 
  > On the form element:
  > 
  > The action attribute is required. I think it should be implied, and the user
  > agent must use the URI containing the form element as destination for
  submitting
  > the form when there is no action parameter.
  > Anyway, action is a bad name for that attribute since it has similar
  semantics
  > as href in a, base and link and src in img and ... (object, applet...). But I
  > think this will change for the better in XHTML 2.0 when making use 
  > of XML Base, XML Linking, XPointer etc..
  > 
  > Greetings
  > 
  > Christian Hujer
  > 

2.10 XHTML 1.1 does not define media type

PROBLEM ID: 9609

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  Fixed

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:30:38 -0500
  From: shane@aptest.com
  
  Full_Name: Shane McCarron
  Submission from: (NULL) (71.34.6.137)
  
  
  XHTML 1.0 references RFC 3236 to define its media type
  [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt], but XHTML 1. does not.  It should.
  

2.11 XHTML 1.1 with namespaces enabled?

PROBLEM ID: 651

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  This was a comment.  We changed the conformance language so it says the local
  part of the root element must be html.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:21:39 +0900 (JST)
  From: "Alexander J. Vincent" <jscript@pacbell.net>
  
  From: "Alexander J. Vincent" <jscript@pacbell.net>
  To: www-html@w3.org
  Subject: XHTML 1.1 with namespaces enabled?
  Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:38:30 -0800
  Message-id: <3C5794E6.3000405@pacbell.net>
  
  I've been wrestling for the last several hours over a conceptual 
  barrier.  I have a document which is valid XML, but technically is not 
  XHTML 1.1.  The doctype tag forces activation of the html: namespace 
  directly.
  
  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
  <!DOCTYPE html:html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd" [
                 <!ENTITY % XHTML.prefixed "INCLUDE" >
                 <!ENTITY % XHTML.prefix "html" >
  ]>
  <html:html xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  <html:head><html:title></html:title></html:head>
  <html:body>
  </html:body>
  </html:html>
  
  What bothers me is requirement 2 of XHTML 1.1, Section 2.1.1.  "The root 
  element of the document must be |<html>|."  
  
  My gut feeling says the above XML document should be treated as XHTML 
  1.1.  I'd appreciate some feedback on this.

FOLLOWUP 1:


  From: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
  Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:15:53 +0100
  
  > From: "Alexander J. Vincent" <jscript@pacbell.net>
  > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:38:30 -0800
  >
  > I've been wrestling for the last several hours over a conceptual
  > barrier.  I have a document which is valid XML, but technically is not
  > XHTML 1.1.  The doctype tag forces activation of the html: namespace
  > directly.
  >
  > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
  > <!DOCTYPE html:html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd" [
  >                <!ENTITY % XHTML.prefixed "INCLUDE" >
  >                <!ENTITY % XHTML.prefix "html" >
  > ]>
  > <html:html xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  > <html:head><html:title></html:title></html:head>
  > <html:body>
  > </html:body>
  > </html:html>
  >
  > What bothers me is requirement 2 of XHTML 1.1, Section 2.1.1.  "The root
  > element of the document must be |<html>|."
  >
  > My gut feeling says the above XML document should be treated as XHTML
  > 1.1.  I'd appreciate some feedback on this.
  
  The root element is still <html>, you've just made the namespace explicit
  (normally it is defaulted). There's no problem.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  Steven Pemberton
  Chair, W3C HTML Working group
  
  

FOLLOWUP 2:


  From: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
  Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:42:01 +0100
  
  From: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
  > "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:
  >
  > > > <!DOCTYPE html:html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
  > . . .
  > > > <html:html xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  > > > <html:head><html:title></html:title></html:head>
  > . . .
  > > The root element is still <html>, you've just made the namespace
  explicit
  > > (normally it is defaulted). There's no problem.
  >
  > Is it being suggested that this is preferable to:
  >
  > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
  > . . .
  > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  >
  > ??
  >
  > It looks rather grotesque to me -- not that one is _supposed_ to
  > look at it.
  
  No, there is no suggestion that it is preferable. It is just an option,
  allowed by XML Namespaces. I was just pointing out that XHTML does not
  disallow it.
  
  Steven Pemberton
  Chair, W3C HTML Working Group
  

FOLLOWUP 3:


  From: hammond@csc.albany.edu (William F. Hammond)
  Date: 06 Feb 2002 10:44:42 -0500
  
  "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:
  
  > > <!DOCTYPE html:html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
  . . .
  > > <html:html xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  > > <html:head><html:title></html:title></html:head>
  . . .
  > The root element is still <html>, you've just made the namespace explicit
  > (normally it is defaulted). There's no problem.
  
  Is it being suggested that this is preferable to:
  
  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
  . . .
  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  
  ??
  
  It looks rather grotesque to me -- not that one is _supposed_ to
  look at it.
  
                                      -- Bill
  
  
  

2.12 XHTML 1.1 spec: lang and xml:lang

PROBLEM ID: 10217

STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: No Response

NOTES:

  @lang is not deprecated, and no, it does not need to be included in the module
  in XHTML M12N.  We have chosen to incorporate it into XHTML 1.1 because several
  groups have demonstrated a need for it.  The rules specified describe the
  relationship between @lang and @xml:lang.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

  Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:57:27 +0200
  From: Karsten Wutzke <kwutzke@web.de>
  
  Hello,
  
  I've looked at the latest XHTML spec from 2009-05-07. Referring to
  
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_com...
  
  In the I18N module, there are only two attributes listed: dir and xml:lang. The note in the last paragraph says: "Finally, note that the I18N collection only contains the xml:lang attribute unless the Bi- directional Text Module module is selected." This is fine, but...
  
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html
  
  says (last paragraph):
  
  "This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute
  collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD]. The lang attribute is defined in
  [HTML4]. When this attribute and the xml:lang are specified on the
  same element, the xml:lang takes precedence. When both lang and
  xml:lang are specified on the same element, they SHOULD have the same
  value."
  
  Is the 'lang' attribute deprecated? If it is not, it should be in the
  I18N module as well. If it *is* deprecated,
  
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html
  
  is basically wrong, isn't it?
  
  What's the status on lang now?
  
  Karsten
  
  

REPLY 1:


  From: Shane McCarron <voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com>
  Date: Wed Sep 16 14:02:45 2009
  
  Thanks for your comment.
  
  @lang is not deprecated, and no, it does not need to be included in the module
  in XHTML M12N.  We have chosen to incorporate it into XHTML 1.1 because several
  groups have demonstrated a need for it.  The rules specified describe the
  relationship between @lang and @xml:lang.
  
  > Hello,
  > 
  > I've looked at the latest XHTML spec from 2009-05-07. Referring to
  > 
  > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_com...
  > 
  > In the I18N module, there are only two attributes listed: dir and xml:lang.
  The
  > note in the last paragraph says: "Finally, note that the I18N collection only
  > contains the xml:lang attribute unless the Bi- directional Text Module module
  is
  > selected." This is fine, but...
  > 
  > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html
  > 
  > says (last paragraph):
  > 
  > "This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute
  > collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD]. The lang attribute is defined in
  > [HTML4]. When this attribute and the xml:lang are specified on the
  > same element, the xml:lang takes precedence. When both lang and
  > xml:lang are specified on the same element, they SHOULD have the same
  > value."
  > 
  > Is the 'lang' attribute deprecated? If it is not, it should be in the
  > I18N module as well. If it *is* deprecated,
  > 
  > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html
  > 
  > is basically wrong, isn't it?
  > 
  > What's the status on lang now?
  > 
  > Karsten
  > 
  > 
  >