Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Wayne Steele <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
>From: james anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>The discussion becomes interesting only around "item 5" documents ...
>The mechanism to which I alluded below neither ignores the problem nor
>does it entail parameter entities, and it conforms to three of the five
>constraints. Item 5 contradicts 1 and 2 and it doesn't make sense to
I don't see how item 5 contradicts 1 or 2.
It creates a new category of documents, distinct from "valid" and "invalid",
as defined in XML 1.0.
How you define this category is the whole point - everyone seems to have
ideas about this.
I will not budge from requirements 1 - 3.
3 is where a lot of proposals fall down.
>Requirements for making DTD validation work with namespaces
>I submit that any "special" processor behavior needs to be 100% compatible
>with XML 1.0 and the XML Namespaces Rec:
> 1. All XML 1.0 Valid documents are still Valid;
> 2. All XML 1.0 Invalid documents are still Invalid;
> 3. All namespace declarations work just as in the XML Namespaces REC
>(whether document is Valid or not)
> A frequent proposal is creation of a new definition of
>I also submit that, for this to work:
> 4. ALL XML 1.0 documents that are Valid and conform to the XML
>REC, are considered to be "Namespace-Valid";
> 5. SOME XML 1.0 documents that are Well-Formed, Invalid, and conform to
>the XML Namespaces REC, are considered to be "Namespace-Valid".
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com