On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 02:12, Hannes Magnusson
<hannes.magnus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:31, Daniel Veillard <veill...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 05:03:41PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:24 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:33:44PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>>> > > Should I be able to validate an XML document (such as a .glade file)
>>> > > that has no DOCTYPE line, and therefore doesn't specify a DTD?
>>> > >
>>> > > When I try it with xmllint, I get this error
>>> > >   validity error : Validation failed: no DTD found !
>>> > > even when I have specified a local DTD with --dtdvalid.
>>> >
>>> >   Works for me with the version from git head:
>>>
>>> Thanks. I was actually using
>>>   xmllint --valid --dtdvalid mydtd.dtd mydoc.xml
>>>
>>> So is --dtdvalid an alternative to --valid rather than a way of using
>>> --valid?
>>
>>  and alternative, as DTD validation as defined in the XML-1.0 spec
>> is --valid i.e. validating as parsing based on DOCTYPE contained in
>> the document, and --dtdvalid is just a different kind of validation
>> closely related, but certainly different, and in subtle case you may
>> see different results (but in general it will be the same !)
>>
>
>
> I did not know that.
> This doesn't however seem to be implemented in PHP, Rob... :)
>
> Is this something we can implement? Pretty-please? :)
>
> AFAICT it could help us _massively_ when rendering "standalone
> extension" (and possibly per-file) in the documentations.
> The "root file" (manua.xml) could still have the DTD attached, but
> when rendering a standalone book (extension/reference) we could simply
> attach the DTD via "dtdvalid" to get the entities defined in the DTD
> (all our snippets) and validate it.


Actually, I just tried it with xmllint.
--dtdvalid doesn't inject the referenced dtd into the doc so entities
aren't "copied over", its pure validation against the dtd :(

Rob: You wouldn't happen to know of any neat "workarounds" for that?

-Hannes

Reply via email to