Home. 
.

transparent

transparent

transparent

Altova Mailing List Archives


Re: [xml-dev] Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?

From: Bob Foster <bob@------.--->
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


transparent
Print
Mail
Like It
Disclaimer
.

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.

.
.

transparent

transparent