[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Bob Foster wrote:
>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.
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/DTD?id=671
If I understand correctly, the decision at the Cannnes FtF
w.r.t. the conformance section of XHTML 2.0 [1] is to require
xsi:schemaLocation and make DOCTYPE optional.
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/Conformance?id=7657
> The start tag must also contain an xsi:schemaLocation attribute. The
> schema location for XHTML 2.0 is defined to be TBD.
>
> It would be highly desirable not to force this.
I agree, but I'm afraid the WG doesn't agree.
and later...
Thanks for your comment. We addressed it some time ago, but did not formally
respond to your message. Your suggestions have been incorporated into XHTML2.
For more information, you can look at the issue database at
http://hades.mn.aptest.com/xhtml2-issues
This was overcome by events. We don't require DOCTYPE any longer, and we have
addressed the other concerns.
With some working group participants thinking there was a decision to
require the xsi:schemaLocation attribute and that the working group
would disagree to drop this requirement, a request to remove this re-
quirement that was "addressed" without actually removing the require-
ment--and it may be just me--I find it difficult to believe that this
was a "typo".
>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?
That's related to The Lost Minutes of the Brain Slug Planet F2F.
--
"Its our language and we can do that." -- W3C HTML Working Group.
|
