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 <> 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
