Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Chris Maden <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 14:52:56 -0500
> Is this document VALID xml?
> <?XML version = "1.0"?>
> !DOCTYPE foo [
> !ELEMENT foo (bar+)>
> There is a validity constraint in section 3.2 to the effect that it
> is not an error to have an element type mentioned in a content model
> that is not declared anywhere. But is it an error if the document
> proceeds to use the undeclared element type?
> msxml thinks it is valid. nsgmls does not.
Opinions, nothing. Fact: PR-xml-971208 has, after production ,
"VC: Element Valid. An element is valid if there is a declaration
matching elementdecl () where the Name matches the element type,
and one of the following holds:..." Since there is no elementdecl
whose name matches "bar", the <bar/> element is invalid. (Personally,
I think this VC belongs in 3.1, not 3.2, and have said so to the
Tip 1: If a document is not valid SGML (post-WebSGML), it's probably
not valid XML. Hunt around in the spec. If it is, the XML spec
probably needs fixing.
Tip 2: If nsgmls says that a document is not valid SGML, it probably
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)