- From: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:28:52 +0200
- To: <public-bpwg@w3.org>
>>[Jo's] Proposed Text: >> >>If the document does not contain a DOCTYPE declaration, FAIL >> >>If the document is not an HTML document, FAIL >> >>If the DOCTYPE is not an XML DOCTYPE, warn >> >>If the document is an HTML document and it has an XML DOCTYPE: >> If the document does not declare the html namespace on its html root >>element, FAIL >> If the DOCTYPE refers to [a known] xhtml version, validate against >>that DOCTYPE and if invalid, warn >> Otherwise (the DOCTYPE is not known), warn >> >>If ( regardless of its stated DOCTYPE) the document does not validate >>against the XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD: >> >> If ( regardless of its stated DOCTYPE) it does not validate against >>the XHTML-MP 1.2 DTD, FAIL >> >>-- I think it is OK. >> >>If the above looks more-or-less OK then the question is what is the list >>of "known" DOCTYPEs and how can the spec be made future proof against >>further versions of xhtml? (That's the good thing about standards, there >>are so many of them to choose from) >> >>Jo >> I also support proposed Sean's list of "known" DOCTYPES (XHTML MP 1.0 - 1.2 and XHTML Basic 1.0 - 1.1) >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On >>> Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile >>> Sent: 18 April 2008 02:17 >>> To: Miguel Garcia; public-bpwg@w3.org >>> Subject: Re: Latest thoughts about ISSUE-240 (DTD Validation) >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:17:22 +0200, Miguel Garcia >>> <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote: >>> >>> ...[explanation of why...] >>> > For an outside viewer mobileOK Basic grammar validity requirement >>could >>> > look a bit weird. >>> >>> Sure. The only sensible explanation is that it takes into account what >>> works in the real world, rather than trying to require things that don't >>> matter in practice, and also takes into account the purpose of the >>> grammar, rather than saying "well, anything is as good as anything >>else". >>> >>> The easy way to get this right is to do the right thing. But some wrong >>> things have no real impact so don't matter. This test is smart enough to >>> recognise some of that. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Chaals >>> >>> -- >>> Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >>> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk >>> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com >>
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 11:29:28 UTC