• From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
• To: Henry S.Thompson <ht@i...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:13:00 +0200

On Dec 5, 2006, at 19:07, Henry S. Thompson wrote:

> So isn't the right thing to say about HTML5 that there _is_ a
> normative schema, but it's not for the surface syntax, it's for that
> underlying XHTML document.

If you count the requirements expressed in English as a "schema", yes.

> Seems to me there _must_ be such a
> grammar, or Hixie couldn't be figuring out what fixups to do: the
> fixups are designed to produce a tree of a certain form, and it would
> be useful for all of us to document that form using a schema. . .

The implied schema for the fix-ups is roughly HTML 4.01 Transitional,  
because the fix-ups are based on browser behavior and browser  
behavior has been influenced by HTML 4.01 Transitional. The English  
"schema" for the higher-level HTML5 syntax is separate from the  
parser fix-ups. There is a non-normative RELAX NG plus Schematron  
schema in the works for the higher-level syntax.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@i...
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Victory has been declared in the schema wars ...
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Victory has been declared in the schema wars ...
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)