Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xml-dev Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in? >Thread Next - RE: [xml-dev] Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in? Re: [xml-dev] Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@---.---> Date: 9/2/2005 6:11:00 AM Ok. Here's the full text of my comment and the response I received: ============= Subject: schemaLocation attribute has no place in XHTML specification I strongly object to the provision in section 3.1.1 that: "The start tag must also contain an xsi:schemaLocation attribute. The schema location for XHTML 2.0 is defined to be http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd." This is absurd. XML Schema is incapable of expressing any but the most trivial constraints in this specification and thus is useless for any practical validation of XHTML. But it would be just as wrong to require a reference to a RELAX NG (or a RELAX NG + Schematron, which would be more useful) schema. The XHTML committee should not be deciding for XHTML users how their XHTML documents are validated, much less specifying a specific schema for the job. Bob Foster Bocaloco Software LLC http://xmlbuddy.com/ ============= On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:28:05 +0200, <bob@o...> wrote: > I strongly object to the provision in section 3.1.1 that: "The start tag > must also contain an xsi:schemaLocation attribute. The schema location > for XHTML 2.0 is defined to be http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd." This turns out to be a typo. We had agreed that the root element MAY contain an xsi:schemalocation. > This is absurd. XML Schema is incapable of expressing any but the most > trivial constraints in this specification and thus is useless for any > practical validation of XHTML. We disagree that it is absurd. XML Schema can express much that is useful, and is a W3C technology, so seems a likely candidate for inclusion. > But it would be just as wrong to require a reference to a RELAX NG (or a > RELAX NG + Schematron, which would be more useful) schema. It would be wrong to *require* it, but not to *allow* a reference to other schemas. In fact it would be rather useful, but we are not aware of a standard mechanism yet to allow references to schemas. Perhaps we should define <link rel="schema" type="application/rng+xml" href="xhtml2.rng"/> > The XHTML committee should not be deciding for XHTML users how their XHTML > documents are validated, much less specifying a specific schema for the job. No, we should be providing mechanisms to allow them to do it if they wish. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton For the HTML WG | ||||||
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | Mobile | Full Site | |||
|
