At 09:37 AM 8/8/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Fine. In reality, the DTD issue may be more of a DTD processor value issue
> rather than an XML spec issue per se. A "namespace conformant" DTD validator
> would validate based on expanded names rather than prefixed names. This
> could be handled by a change to the "Element Valid" validity constraint (not
> really a big deal - IHMO).

It would require a change to attributes as well, which might be stranger
given the Namespace rec's way of leaving attributes out of the default
namespace and all.  

We also need some way to identify to a DTD processor which namespace URI is
associated with which prefix.

> "Validity Constraint: Element Valid
> An element is valid if there is a declaration matching elementdecl where the
> Name [jb insert QName] matches the element type, and one of the following
> holds:
> ..."
> 
> This would make such a document "Namespace Valid" rather than "XML 1.0
> Valid" -- perhaps this is a new category.

That new category needs to be defined someplace, if it's to really exist,
and I think we've seen enough discussion on this list to know that it's not
going to be supremely easy.

> Now that we have a good open source DTD processor...

That definitely helps!  Now we just just parsers that rely on a good open
DTD processor that's loosely coupled rather than tightly bound.  (I'm
working on one, but have zero time. I shouldn't even be talking here!)

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books