On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
At the end of section 1.8 it says:
These XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
required to conform to this specification.
I'd like to see a note here. Something like this: Note: According to
[XML], XML processors are not
On Feb 25, 2006, at 01:06, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I am very hostile towards the idea of requiring UAs to implement
any XML
parsing features that are in the realm of the XML 1.0 spec but
that the
XML 1.0 spec does not require. This means processing the
(I may have already replied to this, in which case apologies; just
making sure I don't leave any behind.)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
In my world that is solved by no longer claiming that HTML is an SGML
application.
And how does the XML part of your world feel about
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Petrazickis wrote:
Wouldn't authors need to use an HTML4 or an XHTML doctype specifically
to trigger the standards mode in IE6? In that case, specifying a doctype
of our own would be counter-productive to the goal of compatibility with
IE6.
!DOCTYPE HTML triggers
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I was wondering if HTML5 (WA1, at the moment) is going to define which
tags are optional and which elements are implied. (This is of course
only for text/html documents.)
The parser has been so defined. I still have to write the syntax part that
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
For example, what is the resulting DOM of this document:
titleFoo/title
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
For this, there is no implied body, as there is no element to imply it.
SGML rules apply here, as they are expressed in the
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
That also means that:
data:text/html,stylebody{background:lime}/style
... generates:
HTML
HEAD
STYLE
#text
BODY
... whether you like it or not.
It actually varies on the browser. Some browsers have a TITLE, some omit
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they only do
their job to validate a document and nothing else.
Validators are not conformant conformance checkers. They are validators,
which is a subset of conformance checking. You could
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, fantasai wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
Or at the very least use something that would not confuse people into
thinking that it is an
application of SGML or XML.
Do you want to replace NONSGML with THIS-IS-NOT-SGML?
No, I want to replace !DOCTYPE - with
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I am very hostile towards the idea of requiring UAs to implement any XML
parsing features that are in the realm of the XML 1.0 spec but that the
XML 1.0 spec does not require. This means processing the DTD beyond
checking the internal subset for well-formedness.
That
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There's no reason why a full conformance checker couldn't be based on
OpenSP.
It would be prudent not to use OpenSP in order to avoid accidentally
allowing SGMLisms that are alien to real-world tag soup.
If I ever get around to
On Apr 8, 2005, at 03:21, Petrazickis wrote:
Wouldn't authors need to use an HTML4 or an XHTML doctype specifically
to trigger the standards mode in IE6?
No. The proposed doctype !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//WHATWG//NONSGML
HTML5//EN activates the standards mode in IE6.
On Apr 8, 2005, at 09:23, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
If I ever get around to writing any form of conformance checker, true
SGML validation (most likely using OpenSP) or XML validation (probably
using Xerces or other XML parser) is at the top of my list.
If I ever got around to it, DTD validation
On Apr 8, 2005 8:18 AM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. The proposed doctype !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//WHATWG//NONSGML
HTML5//EN activates the standards mode in IE6.
The proposed string that MUST appear as the first line of a WHAT-WG
document is... please do not call it a doctype
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
A conformance checker that doesn't check for all the machine-checkable
things is not compliant, just like a browser that doesn't support
everything in the spec is not compliant.
Fair enough, but is the spec going to specify exactly which
On Apr 7, 2005 11:51 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: use UTF-8? (Which
would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for mathematical
symbols it might be a pain to enter
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
And how does the XML part of your world feel about [not having a DTD
meaning they can't use entities]? (I like the idea for HTML.)
The current draft says that there is no particular DTD for XHTML5. It
doesn't stop anyone from using one if they
Jim Ley wrote:
Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: use UTF-8?
(Which would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for
mathematical symbols it might be a pain to enter them.)
In my world that is solved by no longer claiming that HTML is an
SGML application.
So please state
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
In my world that is solved by no longer claiming that HTML is an SGML
application.
So please state that clearly in the specification.
Yes, patience boy. All in due course. Like I said earlier in this thread,
I haven't gotten that far in the editing
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Can you also explain the point of the !DOCTYPE ... gibberish that
the specs require at the top of documents? What are they doing,
please remove them, they serve no purpose whatsoever. Or if they do
serve a purpose, document what the
On Apr 7, 2005 12:03 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They trigger standards mode in modern browsers. The
current one for WHATWG specs is:
Will the spec explain this some more, in particular could you document
what standards mode is, and exactly how user agents should use this
doctype
Jim Ley wrote:
However, a
syntax error in the initial value of a date control *will* cause the
page to stop working as intended.
Could you describe how? My reading of the error handling defined in
the spec for that situation does not lead to the failure you describe.
However the unclosed B
On Apr 7, 2005, at 14:09, Jim Ley wrote:
Will the spec explain this some more, in particular could you document
what standards mode is, and exactly how user agents should use this
doctype to trigger it?
Ideally, UAs would know nothing of that particular doctype and would
trigger the standards
Or at the very least use something that would not confuse people into
thinking that it is an
application of SGML or XML.
Do you want to replace NONSGML with THIS-IS-NOT-SGML?
No, I want to replace !DOCTYPE - with something completely different,
the whole point that anything that looks
On Apr 7, 2005 6:59 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I don't think SGML validation is part of What WG conformance
requirements. I thought Hixie has specifically said he doesn't bother
with DTDs.
Hixie is simply the editor of the spec,
On Apr 7, 2005, at 21:49, Jim Ley wrote:
this thread has shown clearly that many people contributing to the
WHAT-WG work do use DTD's
To me it seemed that you argued that DTD validation is more useful than
other conformance checks as long as the other checks are vaporware and
Lachlan Hunt was
On Apr 7, 2005 8:30 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 21:49, Jim Ley wrote:
this thread has shown clearly that many people contributing to the
WHAT-WG work do use DTD's
To me it seemed that you argued that DTD validation is more useful than
other conformance
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
From which you can clearly conclude I do use DTD validation as part of
my QA process. All the people who have said that DTD validation is
absolutely useless haven't bothered to describe their QA processes at
all.
Nobody is stopping anyone from using
On Apr 7, 2005 9:22 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
From which you can clearly conclude I do use DTD validation as part of
my QA process. All the people who have said that DTD validation is
absolutely useless haven't bothered to describe their
Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
Would a version parameter not be more appropriate, simpler, less
confusing to users, easier to parse, easier to understand, doesn't
confuse users into thinking that it's really an application of SGML.
Doesn't cause problems for legacy user agents like the
On Apr 6, 2005 11:22 AM, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I
disagree with that statement anyway. Validators should not be
non-conformant simply because they only do their job to validate a
document and nothing else.
Absolutely, if there is a continued use of a doctype, then a
On Apr 6, 2005 11:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
and the mostly undefined error handling, what about HTML 5 will
be so incompatible with SGML to warrant such a decision?
One example:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
HTML5 will most likely stop the pretense of HTML being an SGML
application.
+1.
-1
and the mostly undefined error handling, what about HTML 5 will be so
incompatible with SGML to warrant such a decision?
One example:
Olav Junker Kjr wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
see no problem with defining error handling for broken documents, but
no need to break conformance with SGML in the process. HTML is an
application of SGML, regardless of all the broken implementations and
documents we currently have, and I don't want
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Olav Junker Kjr wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they only do
their job to validate a document and nothing else. I don't see any
reason why such a statement needs to be included at all.
I don't see anything about validators. I
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Even if it is decided that HTML 5 is not formally an application of
SGML, it must at least remain fully compatible with SGML, and thus a
conformant HTML 5 document must be a conformant SGML document. XHTML
variants of HTML 5 must be a conformant XML document instead, though
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
This is clearly an example of how existing browsers are
non-conformant,
Doing otherwise would result in a lot of broken pagges
Those pages are already broken. Authors just don't know it because
the browsers are even more broken by being forced to deal with them.
You could also
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Olav Junker Kjr wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they only do
their job to validate a document and nothing else. I don't see any
reason why such a statement needs to be included at all.
I don't see
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they
only do their job to validate a document and nothing else. I
don't see any reason why such a statement needs to be
included at all.
I don't see anything about validators. I only read about
Conformance checkers.
In
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
| Conformance checkers that only perform validation are non-conformant,
So? That doesn't make it a validator.
What is a validator, if it is not a form of conformance checker that
only peforms validation then? Or, the other way around, what is a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Because, if I am understanding correctly and a validator is a form of
conformance checker, a validator cannot check constraints that are not
expressed in the DTD and require them to be interpreted by the author.
Therefore, validators are exempt from checking such
On Apr 6, 2005 3:41 PM, Olav Junker Kjær [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There are three types of conformance criteria:
(1) Criteria that can be expressed in a DTD
(2) Criteria that cannot be expressed by a DTD, but can still be checked
by a machine.
(3) Criteria that can only
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
(2) Criteria that cannot be expressed by a DTD, but can still be
checked by a machine.
Such as...?
aema//em/a
(Can also be expressed using RelaxNG or XML Schema.) You did read my
entry, didn't you?
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Apr 6, 2005 10:05 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 15:10, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
XHTML variants of HTML 5 must be a conformant XML document instead,
though I noticed that is not the case with square brackets in ID
attributes in section 3.7.2 of WF2
That's not
I was wondering if HTML5 (WA1, at the moment) is going to define which
tags are optional and which elements are implied. (This is of course
only for text/html documents.)
For example, what is the resulting DOM of this document:
titleFoo/title
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
... and
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
No, there is no implied body element in either of those fragments.
I appreciate your comments but I was wondering if you have taken into
account what existing user agents do. Since that, not some
out-of-date-not-followed SGML standard, should be standardized in my
humble
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
titleFoo/title
..?
If I am not mistaken:
htmlheadscript.../
title...//headbody/body/html
I believe you are mistaken. A conforming SGML parser will not imply the
body element without
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
titleFoo/title
..?
If I am not mistaken:
htmlheadscript.../
title...//headbody/body/html
I believe you are mistaken. A conforming SGML parser will not imply the
body element
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
The head element seems to be implied by Mozilla and IE.
Even when there are no elements that imply a head? I meant, e.g.,
when parsing the empty string as HTML. My understanding was that no
head element was generated in
49 matches
Mail list logo
