- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:45 -0800
- To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Toby Inkster'" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
> no schema language can capture all the conformance requirements of > XHTML5. maybe so, because some requirements are runtime. If we can't produce a valid (highly informative) XML Schema that can accurately represent the authortime syntax and sctructure requirements, then there will be no firm standards-track crosscheck between authortime content structures, the intent of the standard, and the runtime of the operating browser. > For example, the schema doesn't check that xlink:href values are > valid IRI references. But a schema can include information that allows a detailed authortime check of expected user content cases, maybe in great detail. The schema can help determine if the data is as expected (datatypes) but that level of content inspection might not extend to predicting if some critical data, like the information encoded in a URI, is actually totally approprate and going to work in runtime. But the schema has hooks for detailed deep interactive vallidation stuff like that, So far, I don't see any of html5 that fails one test in one way of me thinking of it. If there is a schema that is an accurate representation of how the elements can be structured and when the data appears to be within reason (for however detailed you want to be) in authortime, then that could be used for applictaion/xhtml+xml as supported by the standard. I mean this includes it all, especailly ARIA. Then a document that made it through that could be published as text/html with a flle extension like .thml and any spec browser would surely do fine -- except if there was unsupported media or some other flack. Of course it could also be published as application/xhtml+xml with a file extension like .xhtml because it should work or fail for the same reason. If the DOM actually works the same for both forms with the same content, then I think it is the right track. The HTML5 standard is giving the content and structure models for legal and validatable html, and by extension xhtml, I would expect the basic content model of html5 can be represented in a more or less standard XML Schema. Thanks and Best Regards, Joe .
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 19:58:42 UTC