xml-dev - Re: Requirements for making DTD validation work with namespaces

["Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III" <winchel@mindspring.com>]

>
> >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
> >implement both.
>
> 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.


I don't see how item 5 contradicts 1 or 2 either.  The use of the word
"SOME" might be changed.  So, for instance, this might be better:


>    5. SOME XML 1.0 documents that are Well-Formed, Invalid, and conform to
> >the XML Namespaces REC, are considered to be "Namespace-Valid".

5. Namespace-Valid documents are well-formed, conform to the XML Namespace
REC, but would be invalid but for Namespace-validation.

That is a bit awkward too, but it is more precise than "some".

Otherwise,  these requirements are excellent.

>
> 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.
>
> >
> >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)


When you say, "All namespace declarations work just as in XML Namespaces
REC," does this mean, they all work as they would in non-validating and
validating parsers, but they work differently in a Namespace-validating
parser, because the behavior of such a parser must be different to validate
a well-formed document against two or more DTDs?

I don't see how this will work (without changing XML 1.0 or Namespaces)
without creating a new class of parser.  Of course, this changes parser
behavior described in the specs, but it does not change the syntax mandated
by the specs.  As I said in another post, I think the Namespace URI ought to
fetch the DTD (or Schema, perhaps) and the parser ought to be smart enough
to know that in the well-formed XML when Namespace A stops and Namespace B
begins, the parser should start validating with DTD B instead of DTD A.

Todd