Valid documents are well-formed, well-formedness is a condition of validity.
Katrina wrote:
Gday all,
I've been pondering this for a few days and I was wondering what other
people's take on this is:
David Hammond suggests that validity is not well-formedness, in that a
document can be well-formed and not valid, but could also be !!! valid
and not well-formed.
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/validity-and-well-formedness#validity_well_formedness
It was my understanding that valid were a subset of well-formed
documents, and therefore, by its very nature, valid documents were
well-formed.
I believe this is supported by the documentation from the W3C:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-documents
suggest that "in addition, the XML document is valid if it meets
certain further constraints." That suggests to me that conformation to
a specification is in addition to well-formed-ness, in order to be valid.
For further support, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML#Well-formed_and_valid_XML_documents
that says that valid pages *additionally* conforms to some semantic
rule(s). That additionally to me would suggest being well-formed.
Is David Hammond correct? Or is he relying on some errors of the
validator to justify his arguments?
Kat
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
