Re: On Henry's comment about documents with DOCTYPE but without markup declaration

Paul Grosso scripsit:

> But I understand that Henry is calling some documents such as
> 
>    <!DOCTYPE html>
>    <html/>
> 
> invalid and others such as
> 
>    <html/>
> 
> neither valid nor invalid.
> 
> Since they are both well-formed but not valid, I'm confused
> as to how Henry is trying to define invalid.

To quote my email to him:

    The term "valid" is defined thus:  "An XML document is valid if it has
    an associated document type declaration and if the document complies
    with the constraints expressed in it."  If either arm of this logical
    conjunction is false, the document is not valid.  I see no benefit to
    saying that if the left arm is true and the right arm is false, then the
    document is invalid, whereas if the left arm is false the document
    is not valid but not invalid either.

I think that Henry is (implicitly) adopting the definition in the last
sentence.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  --John Donne

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 17:31:36 UTC