[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Well-formed and valid

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: 07 Jan 2000 21:53:49 -0500

james anderson <James.Anderson@m...> writes:

> > ... it is possible to have a document that is well-formed but
> > not valid XML 1.0, but still conforms to Namespaces, RDF, or XLink
> > (though not XHTML, which requires validity for strict conformance).
> 
> Hmm, we now have the class of invalid, but namespace conformant
> documents. I recall hearing rather clear assertions to the contrary
> post-REC. Evidently the winds have changed on this question.

C'mon, this is getting silly.  The XML 1.0 REC formally defines two
classes of documents:

  1. Well-formed.
  2. Well-formed and valid.

Any XML document without a DOCTYPE declaration is invalid by
definition, but if it is still well-formed XML, most XML-based specs
(including RDF, XSL, DOM, SAX, DocBook, XMI, Namespaces, etc. etc.)
can work with it.

It is reasonable to argue that allowing two classes of XML documents
was a mistake, but if so, it was a mistake made in the XML 1.0 REC,
not in the Namespaces REC.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Well-formed and valid
    • From: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@i...>

• References:
  • Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: Bob Kline <bkline@r...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: hierarchical database for repository
• Next by Date: Re: Well-formed and valid
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespace prefixes optional?
• Next by thread: Re: Well-formed and valid
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread