[RFC] SRS Section 2

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Feb 3 14:33:48 PST 2005

Hui Zhou wrote:

>> Hui, please read the XML spec regarding what the terms "well-formed" 
>> and "valid" mean.  
> You suggest me reading that l-e-n-g-t-h-y spec again! :-{

No, just the definitions you can find at the start of each and every w3 
spec.  See http://w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#sec-well-formed and 

>> What do you propose the server do with a tag like "<bankaccount>" or 
>> "<banana>" for example?  
> Ignore.

Silently?  Going back to your previous example of a C compiler, how 
useful would it be if you gave the compiler invalid C code and it 
silently ignored those lines of code?  I'm not talking about code that 
is syntactically valid but contains logic-errors or other classes of 
bugs, I'm talking about stuff like a missing ';'.

>> If the server is presented with something like this it has to bail out 
>> because the profile author obviously intended those tags to do 
>> something, but the server doesn't know how to handle them.  
> Is that your philosophy? I spoke some chinese to you and you don't 
> understand and you just stand there "bail out"?

No, I'd tell you "I don't understand what you're saying, could you speak 
English please".  Much like the server should say "I don't understand 
the data you gave me, please give me [ALFS structured data format] instead."

> Say under download tag is a invalid url, does that mean the server 
> should not bail out because it is been validated.

I, see, this is where you *might* be misunderstanding.  When we say 
"validate" we're talking *only* about the structure/syntax of the data, 
not its content.  i.e. we can check that for each package we want to 
build there is a <download> tag and that each "download" tag has a "url" 
element.  However, once we've got that far, *XML validation* goes no 



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list