Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: XML Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 13:53:40 -0400
David Brownell wrote:
> And maybe more. For example, it's very useful to see the
> first validation error be "no DTD provided"!! :-)
My point is that there is no such Validation Constraint.
A WF document that doesn't have a DTD will always provoke
at least one "VC:Element Valid" error, since a WF document
has to have at least one element. But having a DTD
is not *as such* a VC.
It's true that there's nothing in the spec preventing
parsers from reporting errors where there are no errors:
presumably that is a QOI issue.
> > Note that clause 1.2 says validation errors should be
> > reported at user option, whereas clause 5.1 says validation
> > errors must be reported, period.
> The XML editors should know about such internal inconsistencies
> in the spec, and address this in the errata or a forthcoming
> revision of the document.
> > I note that "fatal errors" are of only three kinds: failure to be
> > WF, an encoding declaration specifying an encoding the processor
> > cannot handle, and disallowed entity references (no unparsed entity
> > refs, no general entity refs in the DTD, no external entity refs in
> > attribute values).
> But (following on an earlier thread) if you don't handle
> external entities, you're not required to report all WF
> errors ... sigh.
> - Dave
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)