Talk:XHTML MP

XHTML-MP 1.2

Should we be listing much information on v1.2 without making a separate section for it? If 1.2 info is listed, It'd be nice if there were some explanation about whether it's a working draft or an actual recommendation. And if it's an actual recommendation, why is the v1.2 DOCTYPE broken (see below)? I'd like to think that OMA wouldn't be recommending a standard that we can't run validators against.

This issue makes me hesitant as to whether the 1.2 and 1.0 info should be meshed together without some explanation. I've temporarily commented-out a large chunk of the 1.2 info until this is sorted out. -Gamol 21:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The DOCTYPE

XHTML Mobile 1.0 (working):

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN"
"http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd">

XHTML Mobile 1.2 (broken):

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//OMA//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.2//EN"
"http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/DTD/xhtml-mobile12.dtd">

The "XHTML MP Specification" (see the External Links section) shows version 1.2 of the DOCTYPE, but the URL it contains is broken. Since it doesn't link to an existing DTD, this DOCTYPE can't be used by validators and probably shouldn't be used in documents either.

As of now, this article contains the version 1.0 DOCTYPE. The openmobilealliance.org's own website appears to endorse this in its Technical Section (v1.0 is listed and v1.2 is absent). Until this changes, I think the article should stick with 1.0. — Gamol 04:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT STATUS

In April 2006 I have sent and email to the OMA beacuse of the messing DTDs and received following reply: "The status is the following. Work is ongoing both with regard to XHTML 1.1 and 1.2 DTDs and we are currently expecting to finalize the 1.1 DTD and to have it publicly available around June. However with regard to 1.2 more time is required." I adjusted the first paragraph mentioning this status report. --Masterchief 200X 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is xhtml mp in use?

s xhtml mp in use? Mathiastck 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]