68 2002-11-19 23:20:09 +0000 provide a warning when an XHTML page lacks an xmlns declaration. 2007-08-19 21:06:51 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator check 0.6.0 All All RESOLVED FIXED http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/fixedxmlns notInDTD P2 enhancement 0.8.0 43 739 1 me ot bice77 eldmannen iamback4now www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 151 0 me 2002-11-19 23:20:09 +0000 The validator should provide a warning when an XHTML page lacks an xmlns declaration. Example: http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/fixedxmlns 154 1 link 2002-11-20 13:17:03 +0000 This, as well as providing a warning for an incorrect Root Namespace for the given DOCTYPE, is on the ephemereal mental TODO. This depends on the new config parser and probably one or two other infrastructural pieces of code. Setting blocker on Bug #43 and targetting 0.7.0. 2212 2 link 2004-09-01 16:34:59 +0000 Nominating for 0.7.0 release. 2365 3 nick 2004-09-20 21:08:56 +0000 We need to apply rules based on MIME type. That warning is appropriate to XML doctypes, but not to text/html with XHTML/1.0 where a different message could be used. 2523 4 link 2004-10-12 19:21:40 +0000 Won't make it for 0.7.0. 12848 5 ot 2006-11-07 06:37:56 +0000 *** Bug 3385 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 12849 6 ot 2006-11-07 07:31:51 +0000 Assigning this to me. This is really unchartered territory as this is not a validation issue but a conformance issue, hence it will have to be triggered by some kind of option, but this is one conformance constraint that should not be too difficult to test. 12878 7 ot 2006-11-09 06:50:07 +0000 not targeting the imminent bugfix release, but the next actual version, with an architecture that would allow us to to that kind of thing more easily, with SAX. 13339 8 ot 2007-01-03 15:11:15 +0000 *** Bug 4111 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 14628 9 ot 2007-04-02 10:47:55 +0000 Done in HEAD (soon to be 0.8.0), see: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/xhtml1-strict-missing-xmlns.html;ss The problem is that DTDs can either set an attribute to FIXED or REQUIRED but not both... So we had to deal with this issue differently. Note that current CVS version shoots an error at such an issue, whether it should be a warning is unclear, but comments in e.g http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/03/validation_to_conformance.html#comments seem to show that there is no strong opposition (yet?) to marking not-validation-but-conformance issues as errors. Also see http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/smil20-profile-doctype.smi for an example of document with bogus xmlns, and that is also marked as error by the current cvs HEAD. Resolving FIXED. 16202 10 iamback4now 2007-08-19 16:15:52 +0000 (In reply to comment #9) > Done in HEAD (soon to be 0.8.0), see: > http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/xhtml1-strict-missing-xmlns.html;ss > > The problem is that DTDs can either set an attribute to FIXED or REQUIRED but > not both... How is this a problem? There seems to be a lot of confusion about - or different interpretations of - the meaning of FIXED. I understand it like this (and I'm not alone in this): FIXED means 1) the attribute can have only one value, and 2) the document already *has* that value by means of the FIXED value in the DTD it refers to. This implies that if a value is defined as FIXED and a document refers to a DTD that defines it like that, declaring the attribute isn't mandatory: that's (almost) the /opposite/ of REQUIRED which mandates that the attribute be declared. At the same time, it's /allowed/ to be declared, as long as it has the value as shown in the FIXED clause, and not anything different. (Which is the reason FIXED and REQUIRED cannot appear at the same time. :)) That implies: 1. there is /no need/ for a warning at all when the DTD for the declared XHTML version states this as being FIXED (rather than REQUIRED) and the document does not declare the attribute; 2. there certainly /should not/ be an error message, as the validator gives now, when the attribute is not declared: when not declared, the document already /has/ the correct namespace; and 3. there /must/ be an error message when the attribute /is/ declared but has a value /different/ than the one indicated as FIXED in the DTD IMO the resolution of this issue has actually created a *bug* in the validator, by issuing an error message for what is not an error at all. Since it is apparently not possible (for me, at least) to reopen this issue (or any issue?), I'll file a new bug. (Other related issues: 800, 3385, 4475, 4495) 16204 11 iamback4now 2007-08-19 17:00:15 +0000 (In reply to comment #10) > > Since it is apparently not possible (for me, at least) to reopen this issue (or > any issue?), I'll file a new bug. Done: #4961 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4961) 16206 12 ot 2007-08-19 19:38:31 +0000 *** Bug 4961 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 16208 13 iamback4now 2007-08-19 21:06:51 +0000 (In reply to comment #12) > *** Bug 4961 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** > It has been closed instead, since it's obviously NOT a duplicate of this bug. Quite the opposite.