On 01/21/2013 05:43 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Hussein Shafie, Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:27:35 +0100:
On 01/21/2013 04:38 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
When I created a file with that template, I got the following:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg";
xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";
xmlns:ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML";>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8" />
<title>Bla bla bla!</title>
</head>
<body><p>Blob blog blog!</p></body>
</html>
The namespace prefix declarations are of course invalid
Why that? Namespace prefix declarations are always OK in XML. They
can pose problems only when they are not declared in the DTD. However
for (X)HTML5, there is no such DTD.
Regarding those namespace declarations:
* Except for xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";, they are
non-conforming (but over all harmless) in text/html HTML5.
Typically, when HTML files are non-conforming, we say that they
are invalid. This is perhaps a heritage from HTML4, since HTML4
did have DTDs. HTML5 itself speaks about 'conformance'.
* These 'invalidities' a well-formed in XHTML5. But as you say,
since there is no DTD, one cannot claim that the file is
non-valid per XML’s rules for what 'valid' means.
* However, since my subject is XHTML5 that is simultaneously
_conforming_ as HTML5 - polyglot markup, it seems relevant to
use HTML terminology, despite that we talk about an XHTML5 file.
Thank you for these clarifications.
- so I hope you
fix it. But those xmlns errors are anyhow far less serious than the
lack of DOCTYPE.
This is embarrassing. We were completely wrong. We were persuaded
that<!DOCTYPE html> was not well-formed XML. We were so sure about
it that we didn't actually test files similar to what's above! (or
more simply re-read the XML spec in that respect:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-doctypedecl )
Starting from next release, we'll add<!DOCTYPE html> to our (X)HTML5
templates. Many thanks for taking the time to report this problem.
+1 Good to hear. It seems like the Polyglot Markup spec is quite useful
as a source for pointing out this, perhaps not obvious, thing. :-) You
should pay attention to that spec!
You are right. In the future, we'll pay a close attention to the
Polyglot Markup spec.
PS: In the first editions of HTML5, the official DOCTYPE looked
like so:<!doctype html>
And that variant *is not* well-formed. For a DOCTYPE to be
well-formed, the word 'DOCTYPE' *has* to be in UPPERCASE,
like so:<!DOCTYPE html>
XML also says that the 'root word' - 'html', in a *validating*
XML parser, has to be in *lowercase*. But when there is no
DTD then validating XML parsers is no issue, and so you can
even do<!DOCTYPE hTmL>
if you want. (And in fact, in the template I created for
XMLmind, I did in fact use the doctype in UPPERCASE, like so
<!DOCTYPE HTML>, just to verify that it didn't matter.
XMLmind XML Editor does not implement DTDs. A DTD is translated to an
XSD on the fly. That's why an error like <!DOCTYPE HTML>, with "HTML" in
uppercase is not detected.
--
XMLmind XML Editor Support List
xmleditor-support@xmlmind.com
http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/xmleditor-support
