- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:11:48 +0100 (BST)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-xml-core-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> I am not suggesting that namespaces be changed.
I don't think I suggested that you suggested that namespaces should be
changed!
> I am suggesting that XML validity is useful even if no DTD is present,
> and that it's a bug that validity is defined in terms of DTD.
I'm baffled by this. Conformance to the DTD is what XML validity is
all about. One of the main changes in XML from SGML was separating
syntactic correctness ("well-formedness") from adherence to the rules
in the DTD ("validity").
We're clearly approaching this from quite different starting points.
What sort of alternative validity do you have in mind? You've
mentioned IDs - do you want some kind of "ID-validity" separated out
from the other aspects of validity? And if so, how do you want the
things that are IDs and IDREFs to be specified, if not by a DTD?
-- Richard
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 20:11:56 UTC