Re: XML Validity and DTD dependance

>   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.

Yes.

> But the unqualified
> term "validity" or "XML validity" means "validity with respect to a
> DTD as defined by the XML spec".

And if you go back to my very first post here, you'll see that your
definition is exactly what I was, well, challenging.

>   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".

No.  I want a term for "the instance document meets every single
validity constraint from the XML spec, except that no DTD is present."
What would you call it?  I would like to say "it's a valid XML
document."  You say it would be confusing if I didn't put an XXX/something
in front of the word valid.  Assuming I buy your confusion argument (which
I don't; the number of XML users today greatly exceeds the half-dozen
SGML users :), what would you suggest for XXX/something?

> 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.

Then the XML spec needs to be revised to make DTD's namespace
aware, don'tcha think?  Or do you really think that the only way
realistic way to have valid XML documents -- or hack, let me show
my true colors and say "XML messages -- is to not use namespaces?
(My use of the world /realistic/ rules out the "entity hacks.")

        /r$

-- 
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html

Received on Sunday, 24 April 2005 04:08:07 UTC