Re: possible text on validation

At 01:26 PM 3/30/2007 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>First attempt at more text on validity.
>In some sense, more is less! The current text says little, but says what 
>is formally required. My text expands on that, with the hope of being more 
>useful, but perhaps drifts into being more confused.

Actually, While I appreciate that you added text provides much more detail
about the possible consequences of relying on DTD subsets, I have a strong
quibble with the admonition against such reliance, wherein you write:


>Thus, document authors should avoid reliance on
>an external <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#dt-doctype"
> >DTD subset</a>.

If we are to add clarifying text, it can make clearer the consequences of 
reliance on
a DTD subset, but it must not tell document authors that they "should avoid"
On the contrary, implementors should be cautioned that failure to account for
a DTD subset may result in incomplete graphs. That was how we resolved the 
issue
known as Faithful-Infoset.