> And maybe more. For example, it's very useful to see the
> first validation error be "no DTD provided"!! :-)
My point is that there is no such Validation Constraint.
A WF document that doesn't have a DTD will always provoke
at least one "VC:Element Valid" error, since a WF document
has to have at least one element. But having a DTD
is not *as such* a VC.
It's true that there's nothing in the spec preventing
parsers from reporting errors where there are no errors:
presumably that is a QOI issue.
> > Note that clause 1.2 says validation errors should be
> > reported at user option, whereas clause 5.1 says validation
> > errors must be reported, period.
>
> The XML editors should know about such internal inconsistencies
> in the spec, and address this in the errata or a forthcoming
> revision of the document.
>
> > I note that "fatal errors" are of only three kinds: failure to be
> > WF, an encoding declaration specifying an encoding the processor
> > cannot handle, and disallowed entity references (no unparsed entity
> > refs, no general entity refs in the DTD, no external entity refs in
> > attribute values).
>
> But (following on an earlier thread) if you don't handle
> external entities, you're not required to report all WF
> errors ... sigh.
>
> - Dave
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)