Validity question

[Chris Maden]

[Sean McGrath]
> Is this document VALID xml?
> 
> <?XML version = "1.0"?>
> !DOCTYPE foo [
> !ELEMENT foo (bar+)>
> ]>
> <foo>
> <bar/>
> </foo>
> 
> There is a validity constraint in section 3.2 to the effect that it
> is not an error to have an element type mentioned in a content model
> that is not declared anywhere. But is it an error if the document
> proceeds to use the undeclared element type?
> 
> msxml thinks it is valid. nsgmls does not.
> 
> Opinions?

Opinions, nothing.  Fact: PR-xml-971208 has, after production [46],
"VC: Element Valid.  An element is valid if there is a declaration
matching elementdecl ([45]) where the Name matches the element type,
and one of the following holds:..."  Since there is no elementdecl
whose name matches "bar", the <bar/> element is invalid.  (Personally,
I think this VC belongs in 3.1, not 3.2, and have said so to the
editors.)

Tip 1: If a document is not valid SGML (post-WebSGML), it's probably
not valid XML.  Hunt around in the spec.  If it is, the XML spec
probably needs fixing.

Tip 2: If nsgmls says that a document is not valid SGML, it probably
is not.

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)