W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: Namespaces, the universe, and everything

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:37:24 -0600
Message-Id: <199706192037.AA124762645@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> Paul Grosso wrote:
> Now the point is that mydoc is well-formed, but can't be valid
> because there is no DTD.  But there is a DTD for the subtree
> defined by the <f> element, and it might very well be important
> that that subtree does validate against its DTD (because my
> equation processor requires only valid AAP-marked up input).
> What you can have are what I call "islands of validity" in
> a well-formed document.  

"islands of validity": An interesting concept. I have often observed 
that in the past I have tried to impose validity on entire corpus when 
there was only a small part that I was really interested in being valid,
as extended beyond the well-formed requirements. Indeed, when
I look at html and validation, it really is only a small portion
of our web pages that I am really concerned about, specifically
forms and meta-data, the rest I just want to parse cleanly.

What about the other side of the coin, if there is a DTD for mydoc, but
not for formula, can you have a valid document with an opaque bubble?
Is there any way to make this a SGML valid concept? If the mydoc DTD 
had formula as any would be be ok?

How is validation with ANYDTD interesting? Only for the smart editor?


Dave Hollander                    Hewlett-Packard
Intranet Architect                3404 E. Harmony Road, MS. 6U68
TIS/WebCOE                        Fort Collins, Colorado  80525
dmh@corp.hp.com                   970-229-3192 
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 16:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:10 UTC