- From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:56:11 -0600
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On 2014-01-28 05:41, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Just some clarifications at this point. > > Paul Grosso writes: > >> I don't understand or particularly like the idea of introducing >> the term "invalid". I gather from what Henry says above that >> he is using the term to mean "not well-formed" (or just not XML) >> when he says that a well-formed (but not valid) document is >> neither valid nor invalid. > What I meant to claim, wrt the examples cited, was that documents > without a document type declaration _cannot_ be valid, or invalid, > because the definition of validity depends on _having_ a document type > declaration. I agree that documents without a doctype decl cannot be valid. They can be either well-formed XML or not XML. I'm still not sure what "invalid" (or "not invalid") would mean. > > But part of the problem as reported stems from the fact that the > spec. is unclear wrt what a validating processor should report when > presented with a well-formed document which lacks a document type > declaration. Let's agree that by "validating processor" we mean "an XML processor parsing in validating mode" to avoid considering a tool that can parse in either validating or non-validating mode as a single processor. In section 5.2, the XML spec says: The behavior of a validating XML processor is highly predictable; it must read every piece of a document and report all well-formedness and validity violations. Since the lack of a document type declaration clearly implies the violation of several validity constraints, it seems clear to me that the validating processor must report all validity violations. >> On the other hand, Henry says that <!DOCTYPE html><html/> is >> "invalid", and then that confuses me, since that is well-formed. > The example was easy to misread, sorry, but not was you quote it, > rather: > <!DOCTYPE html> > <hmtl/> > > I should have used > <!DOCTYPE html> > <xyzzy/> > > No, Henry, I did not misread or misunderstand the last example in your message (the hmtl one). My comment above refers to your earlier example and statement, to wit: > It would also probably be a good idea to clarify that as things stand > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html/> > > is, using the usual convention, _invalid_, where > > <html/> > > is neither valid _nor_ invalid... where--as I said in my previous message--you claim that <!DOCTYPE html> <html/> is "invalid", but I believe it to be well-formed (do you disagree that it is well-formed?), hence my confusion about your definition of "invalid". paul
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 14:56:36 UTC