Subject: RELAX NG Grammar question

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:50:11 -0500

There are some constraints that the RELAX NG grammar can't practically
enforce. Should it enforce the MUSTs of the specification or the SHOULDs?
For example, should it allow non-XHTML elements inside a Content
Construct with the type 'XHTML'?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | If you are losing your leisure, look
http://nwalsh.com/            | out! You may be losing your
                              | soul.--Logan Pearsall Smith

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:46:32 -0800

> Construct with the type 'XHTML'?

Ideally we'd like two versions, or maybe some Schematron trickery so we 
get told about SHOULDs but it doesn't actually fail?

As for the XHTML thing, I think this is going to happen all the time 
(foreign markup in embedded XHTML) and I don't think we should try to 
get in the way.  However, I just now tried to think of some spec 
language to express this and came up empty. -Tim

---

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:02:02 -0500

/ Tim Bray <[email-masked]> was heard to say:
| On Feb 3, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|> There are some constraints that the RELAX NG grammar can't practically
|> enforce. Should it enforce the MUSTs of the specification or the SHOULDs?
|> For example, should it allow non-XHTML elements inside a Content
|> Construct with the type 'XHTML'?
|
| Ideally we'd like two versions, or maybe some Schematron trickery so
| we get told about SHOULDs but it doesn't actually fail?

Ok, I'll plan to spend some more time thinking about the Schematron
expressions (and writing some of the hairier ones) after the spec is
really bolted down.

| As for the XHTML thing, I think this is going to happen all the time (foreign
| markup in embedded XHTML) and I don't think we should try to get in the way.
| However, I just now tried to think of some spec language to express this and
| came up empty. -Tim

I think the spec language is fine

   If the value of "type" is "XHTML", the content of the Text construct
   MAY contain child elements.  The content SHOULD be XHTML text and
   markup that could validly appear directly within an xhtml:div
   element.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | Old age is the most unexpected of all
http://nwalsh.com/            | the things that happen to a man.--
                              | Trotsky

---

From: Henri Sivonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:26:48 +0200

>    markup that could validly appear directly within an xhtml:div

Depending on what W3C DTD you choose to read, you could put MathML or 
even SVG there, which is fine, IMO, because I don't think it makes 
sense to exclude well-known vocabularies that you could legitimately 
serve embedded in application/xhtml+xml.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
[email-masked]
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/