- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:14:17 +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>
> > Conformance to the DTD is what XML validity is all about.
>
> There seems to be an inheritent conflict then. XML validity needs a
> DTD, but DTD's aren't practical (to be gentle) with namespaces, and
> namespaces are used a lot. Something in that triangle has to give, no?
Yes, and what gave was DTDs. They were replaced by XML Schemas.
As you point out, XML Schemas have the deficiency that they don't
check for ID uniqueness in the complete document, unless they are
applied to the root element and cover all the namespaces in the
document.
> How about this?
> I give you a document with a DTD and say "it's valid XML."
^^^^
You mean "without", right?
> Why can't I do that? Why do I have to give you a DTD?
Because "valid" *means* "conforming to the DTD".
You can give me a document without a DTD and say "it's well-formed XML".
The fact that people wanted to do without DTDs is the reason that the
term "well-formed" was invented.
As I said in my other message, you seem to want a term for "well-formed
and has unique IDs".
-- Richard
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 11:14:27 UTC