- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:42:20 -0500
- To: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
- Cc: core <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Paul Grosso scripsit: > Interesting. I think they are (potentially) subject to validation, > but what does it mean to validate a document against a "null" DTD? A document with a DOCTYPE but neither an internal nor an external subset is well-formed but invalid, because as Leif says all the elements and attributes report that they are undeclared. This is the way it should be. XML is not HTML, and HTML validity is not XML validity. Furthermore, XHTML5 conformance does not require XML validity. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 00:42:44 UTC