Well-formed and valid

[David Megginson]

james anderson <James.Anderson at mecomnet.de> 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 at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)