Re: [xml] xmllint: validating a document that doesn't specify a DTD

Hannes Magnusson wrote:

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 02:12, Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:31, Daniel Veillard <veillard@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? I'll take a look at this today. Should have some free time this afternoon. Rob