q) XML Schema and valid XML documents

Wikipedia provides the following definition for valid XML document
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML):

it contains a reference to a Document Type Definition (DTD),
and that its elements and attributes are declared in that DTD
and follow the grammatical rules for them that the DTD
specifies.


There is no reference to XML Schema in the above defintion. I am
presuming that this is a dated definition for valid XML document and
that an XML document that has an XML Schema associated with it is also
a valid XML document.

Kindly confirm.

Thanks,
Ramesh

Generic Usenet Account

In article <cfa21e4e-a46b-4f13-91af->,
Generic Usenet Account <> wrote:

> it contains a reference to a Document Type Definition (DTD),
> and that its elements and attributes are declared in that DTD
> and follow the grammatical rules for them that the DTD
> specifies.

>There is no reference to XML Schema in the above defintion.

Without additional context, "valid" means "valid according to its
DTD", and that's how it's defined in the XML spec. In the context of
XML Schemas, it can of course mean "valid according to a schema". If
you want to be less ambiguous, use the term "schema valid" or (since
there are other schema languages) "XML Schema valid".

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Richard Tobin

On 30 Oct, 17:49, Generic Usenet Account <use...@sta.samsung.com>
wrote:
> Wikipedia provides the following definition for valid XML document
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML):

I'm normally fairly pro-Wikipedia, but many of the software articles
are poor, and certainly the XML stuff.

There's very little need for WP content on technical issues like this,
as it's well described elsewhere. This also discourages (or fails to
encourage) the competent WP editors to do anything about the XML
content. So read those sources, not WP.

Andy Dingley

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 30 Oct, 17:49, Generic Usenet Account <use...@sta.samsung.com>
> wrote:
>> Wikipedia provides the following definition for valid XML document
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML):
>
> I'm normally fairly pro-Wikipedia, but many of the software articles
> are poor, and certainly the XML stuff.
>
> There's very little need for WP content on technical issues like this,
> as it's well described elsewhere. This also discourages (or fails to
> encourage) the competent WP editors to do anything about the XML
> content. So read those sources, not WP.

Oh dear. It has deteriorated, hasn't it? It used to be much better than
that. When I have more time...

///Peter

Peter Flynn