[html5] r872 - /

[whatwg at whatwg.org]

Author: ianh
Date: 2007-06-06 17:02:42 -0700 (Wed, 06 Jun 2007)
New Revision: 872

Modified:
   index
   source
Log:
[c] (0) Change the notes and terminology around conformance checkers / HTML validators.

Modified: index
===================================================================
--- index	2007-06-06 07:54:15 UTC (rev 871)
+++ index	2007-06-07 00:02:42 UTC (rev 872)
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
 
    <h1 id=html-5>HTML 5</h1>
 
-   <h2 class="no-num no-toc" id=working>Working Draft — 6 June 2007</h2>
+   <h2 class="no-num no-toc" id=working>Working Draft — 7 June 2007</h2>
 
    <p>You can take part in this work. <a
     href="http://www.whatwg.org/mailing-list">Join the working group's
@@ -1842,13 +1842,17 @@
     2007-03-03)
     -->
     
+    <p>The term "HTML5 validator" can be used to refer to a conformance
+     checker that itself conforms to the applicable requirements of this
+     specification.</p>
+
     <div class=note>
-     <p>The term "validation" specifically refers to a subset of conformance
-      checking that only verifies that a document complies with the
-      requirements given by an SGML or XML DTD. Conformance checkers that
-      only perform validation are non-conforming, as there are many
-      conformance requirements described in this specification that cannot be
-      checked by SGML or XML DTDs.</p>
+     <p>XML DTDs cannot express all the conformance requirements of this
+      specification. Therefore, a validating XML processor and a DTD cannot
+      constitute a conformance checker. Also, since neither of the two
+      authoring formats defined in this specification are applications of
+      SGML, a validating SGML system cannot constitute a conformance checker
+      either.</p>
 
      <p>To put it another way, there are three types of conformance criteria:</p>
 

Modified: source
===================================================================
--- source	2007-06-06 07:54:15 UTC (rev 871)
+++ source	2007-06-07 00:02:42 UTC (rev 872)
@@ -324,25 +324,38 @@
     2007-03-03)
     -->
 
+    <p>The term "HTML5 validator" can be used to refer to a
+    conformance checker that itself conforms to the applicable
+    requirements of this specification.</p>
+
     <div class="note">
-     <p>The term "validation" specifically refers to a subset of
-     conformance checking that only verifies that a document complies
-     with the requirements given by an SGML or XML DTD. Conformance
-     checkers that only perform validation are non-conforming, as
-     there are many conformance requirements described in this
-     specification that cannot be checked by SGML or XML DTDs.</p>
+
+     <p>XML DTDs cannot express all the conformance requirements of
+     this specification. Therefore, a validating XML processor and a
+     DTD cannot constitute a conformance checker. Also, since neither
+     of the two authoring formats defined in this specification are
+     applications of SGML, a validating SGML system cannot constitute
+     a conformance checker either.</p>
+
      <p>To put it another way, there are three types of conformance
      criteria:</p>
+
      <ol>
+
       <li>Criteria that can be expressed in a DTD.</li>
+
       <li>Criteria that cannot be expressed by a DTD, but can still be
       checked by a machine.</li>
+
       <li>Criteria that can only be checked by a human.</li>
+
      </ol>
+
      <p>A conformance checker must check for the first two. A simple
      DTD-based validator only checks for the first class of errors and
      is therefore not a conforming conformance checker according to
      this specification.</p>
+
     </div>
    </dd>
 
@@ -19237,7 +19250,7 @@
   <p class="big-issue">define drag and drop in datagrids; selectiondraggable, etc.</p>
 -->
 
-  <h4>The <dfn><code>command</code></dfn> element</h4>
+  <h4 id="the-command">The <dfn><code>command</code></dfn> element</h4>
 
   <p><span title="metadata elements">Metadata element</span>, and
   <span>strictly inline-level content</span>.</p> <!-- XXX we sure we