[whatwg] [WF2] Web Forms 2.0: Repetition and type ID
robin.berjon at expway.fr
Sun Jul 3 16:42:28 PDT 2005
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
>>While we're on the topic.. what sorts of things would HTML5 conformance
>>checkers have to do that is impossible to express in schema languages?
>>(Aside from checking semantic correctness, of course. I hope you aren't
>>expecting that from a piece of software.)
> Examples, assuming we are just talking about the XML version of HTML5 and
> not the "HTML" version (for lack of a better name):
> * checking the MIME type of the file
> * there must not be more than one <dfn> per term
> * some of the more exotic content models, e.g. <ins>, <del>, the
> distinction between inline-level containers and block-level containers
> * checking conformance of <meta> elements (requires parsing a profile)
> ...and of course:
> * IDs may contain any characters, not just those allowed in XML IDs.
Amongst the tools that have been mentionned was Schematron. Out of the
box Schematron can't check a media type, but with a very trivial to
write extension function it could. All the rest that you mention seems
very much doable. Schematron is built on XPath, which is a very useful
and powerful little language.
> There are also things which will probably require warnings from
> conformance checkers, e.g. violations of SHOULD requirements, including
> e.g. making sure the appropriate <hx> header is used in sections.
Schematron can warn. You could even define warning levels and optionally
look for a lot of issues, even just provide some informative messages
for what might be bad practices.
>>Generic XML editors like XXE have support for using a schema to guide
>>the editing process, but have no knowledge specific to a given language
>>like XHTML. These tools, and other generic XML tools, will not be able
>>to recognize the IDness of the 'id' attribute if it's not possible to
>>express this in a schema.
> As mentioned, that will be the least of their problems.
No, fantasai is right, I can see this being a FAQ, for no obvious
> Sigh. Can someone please explain why there is a completely ridiculous
> restriction on the values of IDs???
IDs are names. I don't like the restriction either but it's there and
I'd much better handle it than ignore it. In fact, since it's a
restriction inherited from SGML HTML-the-SGML-application has it as
well, it just so happens that that's not the way most recent browsers
have implemented it.
> Next I was going to use U+02AD .. U+02AC, but since these are new
> characters, they're only in XML 1.1, not XML 1.0. I presume _that_ is a
> problem for everyone as well?
I have no problem relying on XML 1.1 characters, I would say go ahead so
long as they are name chars.
> I didn't
> want to use ":" at all because of the way that character has special
> meaning for namespaces these days.)
"These days" being six years by now, striving and succesful, I think we
just have to live with it :)
Senior Research Scientist
More information about the whatwg