Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
This document outlines the way in which the XHTML 2 Working Group addressed the comments submitted against the XHTML Modularization 1.1 Recommendation when produding the Second Edition.
Since its publication as a 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 product of the W3C's XHTML 2 Working Group. This document may be updated, replaced or rendered obsolete by other W3C documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use this document as reference material or to cite it 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.
| Issue | Working Group Action | Commentor Position | Change Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 480: errata: XHTML 1.1 | Accept | Agree | Editorial | We will reintroduce these attributes into M12N. It was an error that these were omitted. |
| 9711: Error in 5.4.3, global dir attribute not required | Accept | Agree | Editorial | The working group agrees that this was an error in the prose. The implementations were correct. It will be updated in the next version. |
| 10001: Suggestion for Legacy module | Accept | Agree | Editorial | The group agreed that we should put these attributes into the Legacy module. Their omission was an error. They were included in the implementations already. |
| 650: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value | Accept | Agree | Editorial | The group resolved to change the data type for @usemap to be a URIREF - a relative URI consisting of only a '#' and a fragment identifier. |
| 10214: value for class attribute should be CDATA (not NMTOKENS) | Accept | Agree | Editorial | We will update this in the next version. |
| 8422: XHTML 1.1 Validation Problem | Accept | Agree | Editorial | This will be changed to a URI with a prose restriction that it be a fragment reference (in other words, a relative URI that begins with a #). |
This section describes issues relating to the abstract module definitions in Modularization of XHTML.
PROBLEM ID: 480
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
We will reintroduce these attributes into M12N. It was an error that these were omitted.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
From: "Mike Agnes" <MAgnes@hungryminds.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:17:11 +0900 From: Mike Agnes <MAgnes@hungryminds.com> To: "'www-html-editor@w3.org'" <www-html-editor@w3.org> Subject: errata: XHTML 1.1 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:54:44 -0500 Message-ID: <5C3884E725E60A419834EB4AEE240F4C0CE80E@in-exchange.idgbooks.com> At page http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/changes.html it states that On the a and map elements, the name attribute has been removed in favor of the id attribute (as defined in [XHTMLMOD]). I believe this should read "On the a, form, img, and map elements, . . ." Justification: (1) In the specification of XHTML 1.0, at page http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ it states (section 4.10) that HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. Both of these attributes are designed to be used as fragment identifiers. . . . Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML. (2) XHTML 1.1 documents that DO use the name attribute with form or img elements do not validate with the W3C validator. Mike Agnes magnes@hungryminds.com
FOLLOWUP 1:
From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:24:32 +0900 Hello, MAgnes@hungryminds.com wrote: > At page > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/changes.html > it states that > On the a and map elements, the name attribute has been removed in > favor of the id attribute > (as defined in [XHTMLMOD]). > > I believe this should read "On the a, form, img, and map elements, . . ." You are right, XHTML 1.1 doesn't use the Name Identification Module [1] so the "name" attribute is not defined on "form" and "img", either. Thanks for your error report. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_nameidentmodule Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
PROBLEM ID: 9711
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
The working group agrees that this was an error in the prose. The implementations were correct. It will be updated in the next version.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:45:49 -0500
From: "Edward Z. Yang" <edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Section 5.4.3 "Bi-directional Text Module" claims that when this
module is used, it "adds the attribute dir* ("ltr" | "rtl") to the I18N
attribute collection." The asterisk indicates that the attribute is
required, which is incorrect in terms of the DTD, XML Schema, previous
versions of (X)HTML and, of course, common sense.
- --
Edward Z. Yang Personal: edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com
SN:Ambush Commander Website: http://www.thewritingpot.com/
GPGKey:0x869C48DA http://www.thewritingpot.com/gpgpubkey.asc
3FA8 E9A9 7385 B691 A6FC B3CB A933 BE7D 869C 48DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFxf+tqTO+fYacSNoRAm1eAJ93pGxcdxqcxQcsmxgL7ZaCOxfetQCfQogl
ZR7Pqzk5lzwKDskFFwkf9dE=
=Up6n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PROBLEM ID: 10001
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
The group agreed that we should put these attributes into the Legacy module. Their omission was an error. They were included in the implementations already.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:42:59 +0800 From: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yahoo.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050905050201010704010404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Might the following also be added to the Legacy module? Although I do see that it has not included all deprecated elements/attributes but only the most useful ones, it was only the following attributes (besides <html version=>) as far as I could tell (by searching for all references to deprecated) which had not been included, and these seem fairly useful: applet: hspace, vspace, align object: hspace, vspace, border, align Other than that, (besides applet which has its own module), all deprecated elements also seem to have been already included (besides those obsoleted which had only been in earlier versions like xmp, plaintext, and listing). Thus, if you would add "applet" and "object" attributes above, you might make a note that it is only <html version> which is not included. On an unrelated note, while the HTML 4.01 specs state that "align" has been deprecated (at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html#h-15.1.2 ), it is still a part of many of the XHTML 1.1 modules and is not removed from them in the Strict DTD. Also the specs do not mention "char" and how some such as <caption> allow "top", etc. None of this is too big of a deal, but I thought I'd mention it. thank you, Brett Zamir --------------050905050201010704010404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Might the following also be added to the Legacy module?<br> <br> Although I do see that it has not included all deprecated elements/attributes but only the most useful ones, it was only the following attributes (besides <html version=>) as far as I could tell (by searching for all references to deprecated) which had not been included, and these seem fairly useful:<br> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">applet: hspace, vspace, align<br> object: hspace, vspace, border, align<br> </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">Other than that, (besides applet which has its own module), all deprecated elements also seem to have been already included (besides those obsoleted which had only been in earlier versions like xmp, plaintext, and listing).<br> </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">Thus, if you would add "applet" and "object" attributes above, you might make a note that it is only <html version> which is not included.<br> </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">On an unrelated note, while the HTML 4.01 specs state that "align" has been deprecated (at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html#h-15.1.2">http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html#h-15.1.2</a> ), it is still a part of many of the XHTML 1.1 modules and is not removed from them in the Strict DTD. Also the specs do not mention "char" and how some such as <caption> allow "top", etc.<br> </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">None of this is too big of a deal, but I thought I'd mention it.<br> </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">thank you,<br> Brett Zamir<br> </font></p> </body> </html> --------------050905050201010704010404--
PROBLEM ID: 650
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
The group resolved to change the data type for @usemap to be a URIREF - a relative URI consisting of only a '#' and a fragment identifier.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:27:50 +0900 (JST)
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:51:17 +0200
Message-Id: <20020128225116.MQVI24910.fep01-app.kolumbus.fi@oemcomputer>
[posted to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
and mailed to www-html-editor@w3.org]
In message news:a33jn8$12s$1@mordred.cc.jyu.fi
Ville Seppänen <rissepp@itu.st.jyu.fi> wrote:
> The problem is that a document which contains a client-side imagemap
> does not validate as XHTML 1.1. I have used <img usemap="#mymap" ...
> /> and later <map id="mymap">.
>
> While validating it as XHTML 1.1 an error is
>
> Error: character "#" is not allowed in the value of attribute
> "usemap"
>
> However, the same document validates as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and
> Strict. Any ideas what is wrong? I havent found any hints that would
> suggest this is changed in 1.1 and usemap's correct value still seems
> to be idref (URI).
This is confusing, and what might be done to reduce the confusion is a
correction to the XHTML 1.1 specification, which is why I'm sending a
copy of this to maintainer of that document.
In XML (as well as in SGML), when an attribute is declared to take IDREF
value, the value must be an identifier as such, without any # prefix, and
an identifier that is defined elsewhere in the document in an ID
attribute. More formally:
"Validity constraint: IDREF
Values of type IDREF must match the Name production, and values of type
IDREFS must match Names; each Name must match the value of an ID
attribute on some element in the XML document; i.e. IDREF values must
match the value of some ID attribute."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#idref
In XHTML 1.0, the usemap attribute in <img> is declared as %URI whereas
in XHTML 1.1 it is declared as IDREF. The same applies to some other
attributes as well, like usemap in <img>. I haven't studied the
differences systematically, but surely there are changes that should be
listed at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes
It is not sufficient to mention that "On the a and map elements, the name
attribute has been removed in favor of the id attribute". Related actual
changes elsewhere should be explicitly mentioned too. A clarifying
reference could be made to
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/
abstract_modules.html#s_imapmodule>
This is a real change that makes some valid XHTML 1.0 documents invalid
under XHTML 1.1. In the other direction, things are different, since
usemap="foo" is valid in XHTML 1.0 but lacks useful meaning, since the
semantics is as defined in HTML 4.01:
"usemap = uri [CT]
This attribute associates an image map with an element. The image map is
defined by a MAP element. The value of usemap must match the value of the
name attribute of the associated MAP element."
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#
adef-usemap>
The semantic change should be noted too. XHTML specifications generally
make normative references to HTML specifications as regards to semantics,
and here the reference needs to be modified suitably.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
FOLLOWUP 1:
From: "Austin, Daniel" <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:30:06 -0600
Greetings Jukka,
The HTML Working Group recently discussed your email below. Thanks very
much for your continued support and review of the HTML Recommendations. At
our Group's most recent face-to-face meeting, this issue was discussed and
the WG has acknowleged that this is indeed an error in the XHTML 1.1
Recommendation, and we will rectify this error as soon as possible. The
value of the usemap attribute should in fact be of type URI rather than of
type IDREF. Thanks again for pointing this out.
Regards,
D-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi [mailto:jkorpela@cs.tut.fi]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:28 PM
> To: w3c-html-wg@w3.org
> Cc: voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com
> Subject: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value (PR#650)
>
>
> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
> To: www-html-editor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:51:17 +0200
> Message-Id:
> <20020128225116.MQVI24910.fep01-app.kolumbus.fi@oemcomputer>
>
> [posted to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
> and mailed to www-html-editor@w3.org]
>
> In message news:a33jn8$12s$1@mordred.cc.jyu.fi
> Ville Seppänen <rissepp@itu.st.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that a document which contains a client-side imagemap
> > does not validate as XHTML 1.1. I have used <img usemap="#mymap" ...
> > /> and later <map id="mymap">.
> >
> > While validating it as XHTML 1.1 an error is
> >
> > Error: character "#" is not allowed in the value of attribute
> > "usemap"
> >
> > However, the same document validates as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and
> > Strict. Any ideas what is wrong? I havent found any hints that would
> > suggest this is changed in 1.1 and usemap's correct value
> still seems
> > to be idref (URI).
>
> This is confusing, and what might be done to reduce the
> confusion is a
> correction to the XHTML 1.1 specification, which is why I'm sending a
> copy of this to maintainer of that document.
>
> In XML (as well as in SGML), when an attribute is declared to
> take IDREF
> value, the value must be an identifier as such, without any #
> prefix, and
> an identifier that is defined elsewhere in the document in an ID
> attribute. More formally:
>
> "Validity constraint: IDREF
>
> Values of type IDREF must match the Name production, and
> values of type
> IDREFS must match Names; each Name must match the value of an ID
> attribute on some element in the XML document; i.e. IDREF values must
> match the value of some ID attribute."
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#idref
>
> In XHTML 1.0, the usemap attribute in <img> is declared as
> %URI whereas
> in XHTML 1.1 it is declared as IDREF. The same applies to some other
> attributes as well, like usemap in <img>. I haven't studied the
> differences systematically, but surely there are changes that
> should be
> listed at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes
> It is not sufficient to mention that "On the a and map
> elements, the name
> attribute has been removed in favor of the id attribute".
> Related actual
> changes elsewhere should be explicitly mentioned too. A clarifying
> reference could be made to
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/
> abstract_modules.html#s_imapmodule>
>
> This is a real change that makes some valid XHTML 1.0
> documents invalid
> under XHTML 1.1. In the other direction, things are different, since
> usemap="foo" is valid in XHTML 1.0 but lacks useful meaning,
> since the
> semantics is as defined in HTML 4.01:
> "usemap = uri [CT]
> This attribute associates an image map with an element. The
> image map is
> defined by a MAP element. The value of usemap must match the
> value of the
> name attribute of the associated MAP element."
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#
> adef-usemap>
>
> The semantic change should be noted too. XHTML specifications
> generally
> make normative references to HTML specifications as regards
> to semantics,
> and here the reference needs to be modified suitably.
>
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
> Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
>
>
>
>
PROBLEM ID: 10214
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
We will update this in the next version.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:18:27 +0900
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
A document containing an element which has a class attribute with
an empty value (for example, <div class="">) is valid in XHTML 1.0
(and in HTML 4.01), but it seems like the XHTML 1.1 specification
redefines the value of the class attribute in such a way that it's
no longer valid in XHTML 1.1
For the record, here are the details:
In the XHTML Common Attribute Definitions section[1] of the XHTML
Modularization 1.1 specification, the value of the class attribute
is defined as NMTOKENS:
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/dtd_module_defs.html#a_module_XHTML_Common_Attribute_Definitions
But in the XHTML 1.0 DTDs (and in HTML 4.01), the value of the
class attribute is defined[2] as CDATA:
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_coreattrs
This seems to be a substantive change, but it's not documented in
the Changes from XHTML 1.0 Strict section[3] of the XHTML 1.1
specification, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html -- and
I've not so far been able to find any record of an announcement
about that change (nor any record of discussion about it at all).
Anyway, I note that the XML spec defines NMTOKENS as a space-
separated list of one or more NMTOKEN, and each NMTOKEN must be
one or more name characters, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-Nmtoken
Nmtokens ::= Nmtoken (#x20 Nmtoken)*
Nmtoken ::= (NameChar)+
So as far as I can see from that, any attribute whose value is
defined as NMTOKENS must not be empty. So by redefining the value
of the class attribute from CDATA to NMTOKENS, the XHTML 1.1
specification introduces a change that's not backward compatible
with existing XHTML 1.0 content -- a change that'll cause users to
find that their existing XHTML 1.0-valid documents containing
empty class attributes are no longer considered valid in XHTML 1.1
--Mike
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
PROBLEM ID: 8422
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: Agree
NOTES:
This will be changed to a URI with a prose restriction that it be a fragment reference (in other words, a relative URI that begins with a #).
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:16:19 +0900 (JST) From: Doom Gloom <animedorei@yahoo.com> From: Doom Gloom <animedorei@yahoo.com> To: www-html-editor@w3.org Subject: XHTML 1.1 Validation Problem Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20040710032311.77250.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20040710032311.77250.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com I tried to validate an document using the XHTML 1.1 DTD. I served it as application/xhtml+xml as I am supposed to do. However, I used a client-side image map in my document. It worked, but it did not validate. The validator said the "#" sign is not valid in the USEMAP attribute of the <img> tag, so I removed it. The image map didn't work after removing it, but it validated. I checked out your Image Module and your Client-Side Image Map Module. It seems that you guys forgot to add the USEMAP attribute to the Image Module. Is this true? Please reply. Thanks, Web designer --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
FOLLOWUP 1:
From: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:43 +0200 > From: Doom Gloom <animedorei@yahoo.com> Thanks for your comments. > I tried to validate an document using the XHTML 1.1 DTD. I served it as > application/xhtml+xml as I am supposed to do. However, I used a client-side image > map in my document. It worked, but it did not validate. The validator said the "#" > sign is not valid in the USEMAP attribute of the <img> tag, so I removed it. The > image map didn't work after removing it, but it validated. I checked out your Image > Module and your Client-Side Image Map Module. It seems that you guys forgot to > add the USEMAP attribute to the Image Module. Is this true? Please reply. Which browser are you using? The usemap attribute is certainly in the Image Map module http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_imapmodule and is clearly marked as an IDREF. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton