Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
This note contains issues submitted against the XHTML 1.1 document that need to be addressed prior to updating it for Second Edition.
Since its release, a number of comments have been sent in against the XHTML 1.1 document. This document contains those issues, as well as a recommended disposition for each. Once the working group has confirmed the dispositions, a Disposition of Comments document will be created and made available to reviewers of the XHTML 1.1 Second Edition Proposed Edited Recommendation. This document summarizes the information about 21 open issues in the issue tracking system at http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/voyager-issues.
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 HTML Working Group elected to not change these submissions.
This document is a Note of the W3C's HTML 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.
| Issue | Working Group Action | Commentor Position | Change Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8617: id Attribue For script Tag | None | None | N/A | This is a M12N issue, but is fixed in by building against the latest version of M12N. |
| 8840: XHTML M12N/XHTML 1.1: Nesting rules | None | None | N/A | |
| 6242: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1 | None | None | 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 | None | N/A | 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 | None | None | N/A | 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> | None | None | N/A | This is a request to loosen the definition of UL and is a comment on M12N, not on XHTML 1.1. However, I believe we should reject the request because we never want to call a list with no entries valid. |
| 656: Re: About disappearance of PE "Color.datatype" in XHTML 1.1 flat | None | None | N/A | This will be automatically addressed when the final flat version for Second Edition is generated. |
| 8422: XHTML 1.1 Validation Problem | None | None | N/A | This is a lingering issue about whether an imagemap takes a URI or an IDREF. We have had many requests to change this. My recommendation is that we ask the HTML Working Group what *works* today in implementations and then support this in our languages. period. Even if doing so would make an existing VALID document INVALID. My rationale is actually spelled out by the requestor below. VALID and not working is useless. |
| 472: Re: Errata in/comments on XHTML 1.1 | None | None | N/A | These have been fixed. |
| 9716: XHTML 1.1 media types | Modify and Accept | None | 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. |
| 480: errata: XHTML 1.1 | None | None | N/A | I think we should re-introduce the name attribute for form and img. These attributes are needed by the (X)HTML DOM. |
| 489: error in XHTML1.1 source | None | None | N/A | This is fixed. |
| 478: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html | Reject | None | None | This is an editorial issue with naming in XHTML Modularization. We can't change the names at this point. |
| 469: Errata in XHTML 1.1 | None | None | N/A | These items have been corrected. |
| 584: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Error | Accept | None | Editorial | Fixed. |
| 6288: Error? in XHTML 1.1 Appendix B. | Accept | None | Editorial | Fixed so XMLNAMES is normative reference AND we are referencing second edition. |
| 6933: XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML [#2] | Accept | None | 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 | None | None | N/A | Fixed editorial issue. Need to discuss whether @href on base is IMPLIED or REQUIRED for XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1. |
| 9609: XHTML 1.1 does not define media type | None | None | N/A | Fixed |
| 650: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value | None | None | N/A | Looks like we resolved to change the datatype of usemap to URI sometime ago. |
| 651: XHTML 1.1 with namespaces enabled? | Accept | None | Editorial | This was a comment. We changed the conformance language so it says the local part of the root element must be html. |
This section describes issues relating to the DTD implementation of XHTML 1.1.
PROBLEM ID: 8617
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
This is a M12N issue, but is fixed in 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.
PROBLEM ID: 8840
STATE: Open
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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.
PROBLEM ID: 6242
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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$BgQ(Ber <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de> To: www-html-editor@w3.org Subject: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:26:24 +0100 Message-ID: <oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost Hi, IIRC the id attribute for the style element was added to XHTML 1.0 in its Second Edition (2002-08-01). It, however, doesn't appear neither in XHTML 1.1 DTD nor in its Errata nor in Appendix A. "Changes from XHTML 1.0 Strict" (2001-05-31). Thus it's impossible to validly link from xml- stylesheet PIs to internal styles. I think this should at least be added to Errata. Christoph P$BgQ(Ber
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$BgQ(Ber <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de> > To: www-html-editor@w3.org > Subject: id Attribut for style Element in XHTML 1.1 > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:26:24 +0100 > Message-ID: <oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost> > X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/oprjspaamuvui9pl@localhost > > Hi, > > IIRC the id attribute for the style element was added to XHTML 1.0 in its > Second Edition (2002-08-01). It, however, doesn't appear neither in XHTML > 1.1 DTD nor in its Errata nor in Appendix A. "Changes from XHTML 1.0 > Strict" (2001-05-31). Thus it's impossible to validly link from xml- > stylesheet PIs to internal styles. I think this should at least be added to > Errata. > > Christoph P$BgQ(Ber > >
PROBLEM ID: 587
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: None
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 Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter Tel: +49 (0)89 - 27370437 Fax: +49 (0)89 - 27370439 E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
PROBLEM ID: 614
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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 "&<" ><!-- less-than sign, U+003C ISOnum --> <!ENTITY gt ">" ><!-- greater-than sign, U+003E ISOnum --> <!ENTITY amp "&&" ><!-- ampersand, U+0026 ISOnum --> < will be replaced by &< instead of < & will be replaced by && instead of & 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
PROBLEM ID: 8341
STATE: Needs Approval
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
This is a request to loosen the definition of UL and is a comment on M12N, not on XHTML 1.1. However, I believe we should reject the request because we never want to call a list with no entries valid.
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
PROBLEM ID: 656
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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
PROBLEM ID: 8422
STATE: Needs Approval
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
This is a lingering issue about whether an imagemap takes a URI or an IDREF. We have had many requests to change this. My recommendation is that we ask the HTML Working Group what *works* today in implementations and then support this in our languages. period. Even if doing so would make an existing VALID document INVALID. My rationale is actually spelled out by the requestor below. VALID and not working is useless.
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
This section describes issues relating to the prose in XHTML 1.1.
PROBLEM ID: 472
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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,
--
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
PROBLEM ID: 9716
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Substantive
RESOLUTION: Modify and Accept
USER POSITION: None
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/>
PROBLEM ID: 480
STATE: Needs Approval
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
I think we should re-introduce the name attribute for form and img. These attributes are needed by the (X)HTML DOM.
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: 489
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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! ---
PROBLEM ID: 478
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: None
RESOLUTION: Reject
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
This is an editorial issue with naming in XHTML Modularization. We can't change the names at this point.
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!
PROBLEM ID: 469
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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.
--
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
PROBLEM ID: 584
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
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
PROBLEM ID: 6288
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
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/
PROBLEM ID: 6933
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------
PROBLEM ID: 582
STATE: Needs Approval
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
Fixed editorial issue. Need to discuss whether @href on base is IMPLIED or REQUIRED for XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1.
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
PROBLEM ID: 9609
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
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.
PROBLEM ID: 650
STATE: Needs Approval
EDIT: N/A
RESOLUTION: None
USER POSITION: None
NOTES:
Looks like we resolved to change the datatype of usemap to URI sometime ago.
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: 651
STATE: Approved and Implemented
EDIT: Editorial
RESOLUTION: Accept
USER POSITION: None
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