• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 05:43:56 +0000
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-D9BF7124D09E11D6B29D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <r01050300-1015-E7089EE4D09B11D6B29D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <r01050300-1015-D9BF7124D09E11D6B29D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> wrote:

| Validation seems to be a fetish that's ruled the project, not something 
| productive in and of itself. 

I think the fetish has been "encompassing" validation, as opposed to
"enabling" validation, to borrow two terms:

 http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/docs/n1920/html/clause-A.3.1.html

(Things would be easier if DTDs had an explicit provision for "delegation"
but architectures actually go beyond that.)

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: parser models
• Next by Date: Re: [Off-Topic] Who/What is flowserve.com? (A Report to Sender Bogosity)
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread