RE: [xml-dev] XML spec and XSD

["Jim Tivy" <jimt@bluestream.com>]

Hi Mukul

The line from the XML 1.0 5th edition spec

[Definition: An XML document is valid if it has an associated document type
declaration and if the document complies with the constraints expressed in
it.]

The above definition of the term "valid" is not really common Xml usage
anymore. I have seen the term "valid" used when a document has no DTD and
"validates" against an XML schema - for instance Oxygen uses this term - or
Xml Schema Primer says:

(1) it checks for conformance to the rules, a process called schema
validation,

So Mukul's suggestion of having a forward reference using "such as" text is
definately an improvement - for example:

An XML document is valid if it has an associated document type declaration
and if the document complies with the constraints expressed in it.  As well,
the validity of an XML instance can be determined with the use of a document
type declaration if using other validation mechanisms such as XML Schema.]

There have been previous discussions - see XML entry in Wikipedia - where
people have expressed a need to see DTD's special status removed with
respect to XML.

So perhaps we can close the discussion on that note :)

Jim



-----Original Message-----
From: Mukul Gandhi [mailto:gandhi.mukul@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:41 AM
To: David Carlisle
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML spec and XSD

I think, I need to give up with my arguments in this thread. The
concepts now seem to go into my head. Nobody so far seem to agree with
my arguments. It seems, I was wrong.

Sorry for wasting anybody's time.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:
>> The spec seems to suggest that XML documents are valid only if a DTD
>> is associated with the XML document.
>
> That is not a "suggestion". valid is a technical term defined in the XML
> specification and that's a necessary condition for validity.
>
>> I don't mind validating XML documents with other technologies like
>> RelaxNG or Schematron, if there is a need for me to do so. But I
>> think, existence of technologies like RelaxNG or Schematron cannot be
>> an excuse for XML spec, not to mention XSD within it as a validating
>> technology.
>
> Whether or not a document validates against an XSD or schematron schema
> has no bearing on whether or not it is a valid as opposed to merely well
> formed XML document. You seem to want "valid" to mean validated against
> any schema language of your choice, that's OK (but confusing) if used in
> conversation, but it is not the way the term "valid" is defined in XML.
>
>
> XSD, RelaxNG, Schematron all depend on XML; not the other way round. They
> require normative references to XML, it would be entirely backwards (or
> worse, circular) for XML to reference them.
>
> David



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php