Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: 07 Jan 2000 21:53:49 -0500
james anderson <James.Anderson@mecomnet.de> writes:
> > ... it is possible to have a document that is well-formed but
> > not valid XML 1.0, but still conforms to Namespaces, RDF, or XLink
> > (though not XHTML, which requires validity for strict conformance).
> Hmm, we now have the class of invalid, but namespace conformant
> documents. I recall hearing rather clear assertions to the contrary
> post-REC. Evidently the winds have changed on this question.
C'mon, this is getting silly. The XML 1.0 REC formally defines two
classes of documents:
2. Well-formed and valid.
Any XML document without a DOCTYPE declaration is invalid by
definition, but if it is still well-formed XML, most XML-based specs
(including RDF, XSL, DOM, SAX, DocBook, XMI, Namespaces, etc. etc.)
can work with it.
It is reasonable to argue that allowing two classes of XML documents
was a mistake, but if so, it was a mistake made in the XML 1.0 REC,
not in the Namespaces REC.
All the best,
David Megginson firstname.lastname@example.org
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, 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)