- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 20:55:04 +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>
> Well, I really meant all of validity. If you remove DTD's then some of > the validity constraints become not relevant, but you don't have to remove > them since there's never any way to not meet them. Just to be quite clear here: *all* the validity constraints depend on DTDs. In the absence of a DTD, there's no point reporting any validity errors except the absence of the DTD itself. > Look at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Apr/0033.html > for a rough list. Ok, I think I understand. The validity constraints that you say are on the document itself are ones that *could* be specified by some other mechanism than DTDs, such as XML Schemas. But the unqualified term "validity" or "XML validity" means "validity with respect to a DTD as defined by the XML spec". If the constraints are specified by a schema, we say "schema validity", and leave that term to be defined by the schema spec. It seems you want a term meaning "valid according to whichever kind of schema I am using", and I think it would be very confusing to adopt the plain term "valid" for that, when it has been used for so long in both SGML and XML to mean "DTD valid". And once again for clarity, when the XML spec has a validity constraint called "Element Valid", it means "valid according to the DTD". If you want a constraint like that that isn't tied to DTDs, I don't think the XML spec is the right place for it. -- Richard
Received on Saturday, 23 April 2005 19:55:14 UTC