Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[David Dorward]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> That article is actually only talking about the cases where the W3C
> validator has known XML limitations.

Which are removed in the current beta. http://validator-test.w3.org/


-- 
David Dorward   


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Stuart Foulstone]

Hi,

sorry, I was thinking of a well formed document in general, rather than
specifically to a (X)HTML/XML markup document.

I seem be at cross purposes.

Stuart


On Sat, April 28, 2007 6:45 pm, Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007, at 18:18:00, Stuart Foulstone wrote:
>
>> And, people do format their document with of headings, paragraphs
>> etc.,
>> which if they do correctly is called well formed document.
>
> No, it means it's a _valid_ document. Well-formedness means
> conforming to rules such as no use of the "<" or "&" characters other
> than to start an opening or closing tag, or to start an entity
> reference, respectively. Validity means conforming to a DTD.
>
> See the definitions:
> Well-formedness:  formed>
> Valid: 
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick.
>
>>
>> On Sat, April 28, 2007 8:02 am, David Dorward wrote:
>>> Stuart Foulstone wrote:
 Validation concerns the correctness of the syntax of the code,
 i.e. if the tags, etc. are properly coded.
>>>
 Well-formedness concerns the structure of the document,
 i.e. where in the document headings , paragraphs, etc go.
>>>
>>> You've got those backwards.
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Nick Fitzsimons
> http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Stuart Foulstone.
http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk
BigEasy Web Design
69 Flockton Court
Rockingham Street
Sheffield
S1 4EB

Tel. 07751 413451


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Lachlan Hunt]

Katrina wrote:
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 


That article is actually only talking about the cases where the W3C 
validator has known XML limitations.  Despite the validator claiming the 
non-well-formed documents are valid, they are not.  If you use a 
validator that makes use of a real XML parser, the documents would not 
validate.


Page Valet has an XML parser available for validation.
http://valet.webthing.com/page/

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 28 Apr 2007, at 18:18:00, Stuart Foulstone wrote:

And, people do format their document with of headings, paragraphs  
etc.,

which if they do correctly is called well formed document.


No, it means it's a _valid_ document. Well-formedness means  
conforming to rules such as no use of the "<" or "&" characters other  
than to start an opening or closing tag, or to start an entity  
reference, respectively. Validity means conforming to a DTD.


See the definitions:
Well-formedness: 

Valid: 

Regards,

Nick.



On Sat, April 28, 2007 8:02 am, David Dorward wrote:

Stuart Foulstone wrote:

Validation concerns the correctness of the syntax of the code,
i.e. if the tags, etc. are properly coded.



Well-formedness concerns the structure of the document,
i.e. where in the document headings , paragraphs, etc go.


You've got those backwards.




--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Stuart Foulstone]

No, really, people do validate their code - they use a validator.

And, people do format their document with of headings, paragraphs etc.,
which if they do correctly is called well formed document.

Having got a well formed document, they may well decide to create a
Webpage by using a Markup language (which they then valdate).

As well as validating the code, they should also ensure that their markup
do not alter the well-formedness of the underlying document.

Stuart

On Sat, April 28, 2007 8:02 am, David Dorward wrote:
> Stuart Foulstone wrote:
>> Validation concerns the correctness of the syntax of the code,
>> i.e. if the tags, etc. are properly coded.
>
>> Well-formedness concerns the structure of the document,
>> i.e. where in the document headings , paragraphs, etc go.
>
> You've got those backwards.
>
>
> --
> David Dorward   
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Stuart Foulstone.
http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk
BigEasy Web Design
69 Flockton Court
Rockingham Street
Sheffield
S1 4EB

Tel. 07751 413451


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[David Dorward]

Stuart Foulstone wrote:
> Validation concerns the correctness of the syntax of the code,
> i.e. if the tags, etc. are properly coded.

> Well-formedness concerns the structure of the document,
> i.e. where in the document headings , paragraphs, etc go.

You've got those backwards.


-- 
David Dorward   


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Stuart Foulstone]

Hi,

I've always understood that

Validation concerns the correctness of the syntax of the code,
i.e. if the tags, etc. are properly coded.

Well-formedness concerns the structure of the document,
i.e. where in the document headings , paragraphs, etc go.

Stuart

.
On Fri, April 27, 2007 10:09 am, Barney Carroll wrote:
> Aside from namespace issues, validation deals principally with
> well-formedness, as far as I'm aware.
>
> If someone really believes the W3C is of no concern to people focused on
> building well-formed documents, they should tell us what definition of
> well-formed they are using. Otherwise this thread will quickly become a
> torrent of pointless opinion soup.
>
>
> Regards,
> Barney
>
>
> Katrina wrote:
>>  Does the W3C validation mention
>>> well-formedness? No.
>>>
>>
>> But since the definition of valid includes well-formed, well-formed
>> documents should not validate.
>>
>>> Please do not quote Wikipedia, when the W3C sets authoritative
>>> documentation.
>>
>> The point with the Wikipedia was to show that it wasn't just me that
>> interpreted the W3C documentation in that manner.
>>
>>> What do W3C say about well-formed, nothing I expect?
>>
>> Since well-formed applies to their standards, quite a lot I would
>> imagine.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-well-formed
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.1
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#wellformed
>>
>>
>> Kat
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Stuart Foulstone.
http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk
BigEasy Web Design
69 Flockton Court
Rockingham Street
Sheffield
S1 4EB

Tel. 07751 413451


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[David Dorward]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:39:16AM +0100, Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
> He says that they "are perfectly valid from an SGML point of view but  
> not well-formed". I think he believes that the validator only uses an  
> SGML parser, but it will use an XML parser when appropriate (XHTML  
> served with the correct MIME type).

The current stable version of the W3C Markup Validator only, as far as
I know, has an SGML parser, but one which has a (buggy) XML mode.

The current beta version (http://validator-test.w3.org/) has a real
XML parser which it switches to for XML MIME types and text/html
documents with a Doctype that it recognises as being XHTML.

http://validator-test.w3.org/whatsnew.html#t2007-04-19

-- 
David Dorward  http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Barney Carroll]

Aside from namespace issues, validation deals principally with 
well-formedness, as far as I'm aware.


If someone really believes the W3C is of no concern to people focused on 
building well-formed documents, they should tell us what definition of 
well-formed they are using. Otherwise this thread will quickly become a 
torrent of pointless opinion soup.



Regards,
Barney


Katrina wrote:

 Does the W3C validation mention

well-formedness? No.



But since the definition of valid includes well-formed, well-formed 
documents should not validate.


Please do not quote Wikipedia, when the W3C sets authoritative 
documentation.


The point with the Wikipedia was to show that it wasn't just me that 
interpreted the W3C documentation in that manner.



What do W3C say about well-formed, nothing I expect?


Since well-formed applies to their standards, quite a lot I would imagine.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-well-formed
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#wellformed


Kat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Katrina]

But since the definition of valid includes well-formed, well-formed documents 
should not validate.


Blame it on being Friday night! I meant: mal-formed documents should not 
validate.


Kat




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Katrina]

 Does the W3C validation mention

well-formedness? No.



But since the definition of valid includes well-formed, well-formed 
documents should not validate.


Please do not quote Wikipedia, when the W3C sets authoritative 
documentation.


The point with the Wikipedia was to show that it wasn't just me that 
interpreted the W3C documentation in that manner.



What do W3C say about well-formed, nothing I expect?


Since well-formed applies to their standards, quite a lot I would imagine.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-well-formed
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#wellformed


Kat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 27 Apr 2007, at 08:41:53, Katrina wrote:

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.


Is David Hammond correct? Or is he relying on some errors of the  
validator to justify his arguments?


It does seem to me that he is merely relying on the validator to say  
what's right, but as the validator results page says, "Note: The  
Validator XML support has some limitations."


The last two words of that sentence are a link to openjade.sourceforge.net/doc/xml.htm> which (among other things)  
states that a number of XML constraints are not enforced by the  
parser. In particular, it says that "OpenSP does not enforce XML's  
rules on not continuing normal processing after an error", and I  
believe all DH has found is that this means that certain well- 
formedness errors will not be flagged by the validator.


He says that they "are perfectly valid from an SGML point of view but  
not well-formed". I think he believes that the validator only uses an  
SGML parser, but it will use an XML parser when appropriate (XHTML  
served with the correct MIME type). The claim of validity he makes is  
based on the assumption that the SGML parser has been used, but in  
fact an XML parser which fails to enforce all XML well-formedness  
constraints has been used.


So, IMHO, you are correct to believe that the claim that "a document  
can be valid but not well-formed" is based on a misunderstanding of  
the type of parser used by the validator, and the limitations of that  
parser.


Regards,

Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Tim]

Are these documents really "well-formed", they may validate. but with  
warnings you should not ignore.


Warning  Line 8 column 72: character "<" is the first character of a  
delimiter but occurred as data.

...ML 1.0 Strict, but it isn't well-formed XML. <
Warning  Line 8 column 72: character "&" is the first character of a  
delimiter but occurred as data.

...ML 1.0 Strict, but it isn't well-formed XML. &

Is formed the author David's term. Does the W3C validation mention  
well-formedness? No.


Please do not quote Wikipedia, when the W3C sets authoritative  
documentation.

What do W3C say about well-formed, nothing I expect?

Tim


On 27/04/2007, at 5:41 PM, 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]
***



The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Michael Shaw]

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]
***

[WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Katrina]

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]
***