.
Example
a:1:more:time
:1:more:time
1 more time
would all be valid but
1:more:time
would not be.
--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
validation tools).
I take your point ref the difficulty to update something in /TR space,
I'm sure we'll find a way. There should not be any need to do that
more than once in the spec's lifetime. Well, in theory that is ;)
Francois.
On 01/03/2011 06:46 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
Well... I
My recommendation is that you use the versions at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD - these versions work and will be
maintained. There shouldn't even be a version in TR space. I thought I
had ripped those out for the new release.
On 12/13/2010 11:29 AM, Francois Daoust wrote:
Hi,
The XHTML
Thanks for pointing this out. We are looking into it. We will get you
a formal response soon.
Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
xhtml.cat in the PER-xhtml-modularization-20100414 tarball
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PER-xhtml-modularization-20100414/xhtml-modularization.tgz
refers to
Thomas,
Sorry for not replying to this earlier. We are making updates to this
document, and have taken your comments into account. We basically agree
with most of them. Some comments below:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Hello all,
while reviewing the updated
Okay - I have updated this document in place to reflect the
corrections. Please let me know if you have any further comments.
Shane McCarron wrote:
Thanks for your comment Michael. The PER has not yet formally started
review, but I will check with the powers that be and make this change
Jeremy,
Thanks for your comment. The working group discussed this and has the following
resolution. Please confirm if this resolution addresses your concern:
We added a comment to the CURIE specification consistent with the submitters
request. We were unable to make changes to the RDFa
to CR in the near
future.
Shane McCarron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* The introduction contains the statement:
current
Unfortunately, QNames are unsuitable in most cases because 1) they are
NOT intended for use in attribute values, and 2)
/current
Whether or not they were originally
Thanks for your comments. The XHTML 2 Working Group has discussed these
as a working group. Our comments are scattered below.
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
Dear colleagues:
Comments (4) through (9), on the other hand, relate to areas where the
Working Groups of the XML Activity have
Thanks for these comments. First, I assume you are referring to XHTML
Basic 1.1.
I have updated the XML reference to the fourth edition.
I have removed the XForms reference - it wasn't supposed to be in there
and was not used anywhere.
Thanks for bringing these to our attention.
Shane
Leigh,
Thanks for your comments. The requested changes have been made with the
exception of including a RelaxNG definition. The working group is in the
process of developing an overall strategy on supporting RelaxNG. When that
strategy is ready, we will introduce the appropriate datatypes.
Al,
The working group recognizes that the dependency on CURIEs is a risk, but is
aggressively progressing the CURIE specification and is confident that it will
become a Recommendation in short order.
As to what the ARIA spec should require with regard to processing role values
that are CURIES
Leigh,
We will clear up the wording to help reduce any potential confusion. We will
also clarify that host languages are only required to use XMLNS for prefix
definition if the language supports XML Namespaces. Thanks!
It does not exist.
Michael Wheelwright wrote:
Hi,
From my understanding 1.1 has done away with “Transitional”/”Strict”
modes, however I’ve just received a request to develop something using
XHTML 1.1 Transitional. Can you please clarify whether or not this
exists this for me?
Thank you!
Al,
Editor's drafts, prior to a publication for last call, in general should
ALWAYS say they are not stable. A formal, published working draft will
convey the appropriate sense of stability.
Al Gilman wrote:
The language
q cite='http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20080122/#status'
It
We have removed the comment that implies IRIs are encompassed, isntead
deferring to XMLSCHEMA to define the anyURI datatype.
Thanks for your comment!
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hi,
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#dt_URI
claims that the type anyURI in XMLSCHEMA
We have implemented the change you requested. It will be present in the next
public draft. Thanks for your comment!
The Curie Syntax document should warn that CURIEs that match
the RFC 3987 production named IP-literal may be mistaken
for suffix references (see RFC 3986 section 4.5) by permissive
URI parsers. For example, [dead::beef] is a valid CURIE,
but also a valid URI authority-part in the form of
The XHTML 1.0 Second Edition spec contains a DTD, and that DTD [1]
indicates the style element takes an id attribute. The normative DTD
itself at [2] also says this. Your document, on the other hand, claims
to be XHTML 1.1. XHTML 1.1 Second Edition DOES indeed permit the id
attribute on
The reason there is not a schema version is because we did not want this
spec to be dependent on the (extremely delayed for no obvious reason)
XHTML Modularization 1.1 spec. As soon as we have M12N 1.1 advanced, we
will update role accordingly.
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
This is a
Thanks for your comment.
scoped values are an extension mechanism, and we need some mechanism for ready
extension of roles. If CURIEs don't work out, we will have to consider other
mechanisms, and full URIs are worthy of consideration.
This is just W3C boilerplate. This document is the definitive specification for
CURIEs, and it is not anticipated that any other specification will override it.
The other specifications that currently include some form of CURIE definition
inline are expected to (quickly) migrate to referencing
This is standard W3C boiler plate. The CURIE spec is the definitive
resource for the definition of a CURIE. This boiler plate really
applies to the future where, in some cases, some W3C documents have been
merged with others or had their short names changed or what-have-you.
We do not
Some comments inline:
Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
The TAG remains concerned about the possibility of even 'safe_curies' leaking
into attribute values where plain URIReferences are expected. We may be more
sanguine about mixing URI and (safe?) CURIEs in new language components
Thank you for your comments...
David B. Gustavson wrote:
In document http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/
In the following, the semicolon should be a comma:
In SGML-based HTML 4 certain elements were permitted to omit the end
tag; with the elements that followed implying closure.
Thanks for this. The working group has recently decided to prohibit
un-prefixed CURIEs, thereby solving the entire problem. A new draft
reflecting these changes will be available shortly.
Norman Walsh wrote:
A casual reading of the CURIE spec raised the following technical
questions in my
I suspect this is a bug - thanks for catching it. The transition from
the basic forms to forms module was a late addition to XHTML Basic 1.1,
and I missed this. I will submit it to the group and see if we can get
it corrected quickly.
Thanks!
Vicente Luque Centeno wrote:
In XHTML Basic
1) While we appreciate that what you suggest might make reading easier, the way
we do it is how W3C specs all do it as far as we know. We do agree about
expanding the text, and will attempt to make that change over time.
2) We agree that semantic markup is a good thing. We do not have a
This is not a normative requirement; it is a genuine lowercase may.
XHTML Modularization does not supply such drivers. The drivers are part
of the markup language standards. In this case, XHTML Basic 1.1 and
XHTML 1.1 need to be updated to include the schema drivers. They will
be. You need to be patient.
Alexandre Alapetite wrote:
Dear HTML editors,
30 matches
Mail list logo
