• To: davep@d...
• Subject: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:24:59 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1123780181.3496.27.camel@marge>
• References: <1123780181.3496.27.camel@marge>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

I sent a formal comment on that "feature" and was advised it was an 
error that would be corrected; the intention was to _allow_ the 
schemaLocation attribute.

That reduces the shock value, but it's still pretty silly. Why don't 
they just allow attributes from any foreign namespace on every element 
like schema languages do and let processors ignore the attributes they 
don't recognize?

(I didn't fare so well with my accompanying suggestion that it was 
absurd to use XML Schema for XHTML validation, as there are so many 
constraints it can't model. The response to that was more like "Harumph! 
XML Schema is an official W3 recommendation!". ;)

Bob Foster
http://xmlbuddy.com/

Dave Pawson wrote:
> http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005/08/10#Today_s_XM
> 
> I guess it is biassed.
>  I support that bias.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/conformance.html#strict
> But ... .even XML doesn't *require* the DTD to be included.
> 
> I'm with Uche on this one.
> What were they (the WG) doing!... or smoking?
> 
> regards DaveP

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>

• Prev by Date: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by Date: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Previous by thread: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread