Legal XML

[Nitin Menon]

Hi,
I am developing an alternate XSD Parser and would like to know if the below given xml files are legal or not.
Thanks

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Catalogue>

  <Film date="1976">
    <Title>Star Wars</Title>
    <Catalogue> AB123 </Catalogue>
    <Director>George Lucas</Director>
  </Film>
  
</Catalogue>

Similarly,

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Catalogue>

  <Film date="1976">
    <Title>Star Wars</Title>
    <Film> AABBCC </Film>
    <Director>George Lucas</Director>
  </Film>
  
</Catalogue>

Thank you in advance..!

[Ulf Dittmer]

What do the existing parsers think about those?

Although, without a schema, where does XSD come into play?

[Nitin Menon]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:What do the existing parsers think about those?

Although, without a schema, where does XSD come into play?

All I want to know is if the given XML structure valid. That is, in one of them, there is a parent node called Catalogue which has a child node called Catalogue. In the next one, there's another parent called Film who has a child node called Film. Would this be illegal syntax according to XML standards set by W3C? Please forget the XSD, Schema or the parsers..!

[Ulf Dittmer]

If it was illegal, shouldn't a parser tell you that real quick? Much quicker, in fact, than waiting for an answer in a forum?

[Nitin Menon]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:If it was illegal, shouldn't a parser tell you that real quick? Much quicker, in fact, than waiting for an answer in a forum?

Mate,
My parser isn't developed fully. I am not using any other parsers as well. All I need to know is if it is conventional to have the same names for both the parent and child elements in an XML body.

[Ulf Dittmer]

If you have Java installed, then you have an XML parser installed; check out the JAXP API in the javax.xml package.

No, it is not conventional, if for no other reason than that it is confusing. But it is well-formed XML; validity does not come into play, as there is no schema.

[Nitin Menon]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:If you have Java installed, then you have an XML parser installed; check out the JAXP API in the javax.xml package.

No, it is not conventional, if for no other reason than that it is confusing. But it is well-formed XML; validity does not come into play, as there is no schema.

Ooh..! Got your point. Thank you very much..!

[Matthew Brown]

It's certainly valid XML. Just think of XHTML - it's common to have <div> tags within a <div> tag.

[Nitin Menon]

Matthew Brown wrote:It's certainly valid XML. Just think of XHTML - it's common to have <div> tags within a <div> tag.

OK. That's all I needed to know as the validation against a rule can be specified in the schema.
Thank you all for the help..!

[Ulf Dittmer]

Matthew Brown wrote:It's certainly valid XML.

Gotta disagree with that phrasing - "valid" in XML Jargon means "it validates against a schema", be that XSD, DTD or Relax-NG. Since there is no schema in play here, it can't be said to be valid. But it is well-formed, i.e. it conforms to the rules of how XML documents are structured.

[Nitin Menon]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:

Matthew Brown wrote:It's certainly valid XML.

Gotta disagree with that phrasing - "valid" in XML Jargon means "it validates against a schema", be that XSD, DTD or Relax-NG. Since there is no schema in play here, it can't be said to be valid. But it is well-formed, i.e. it conforms to the rules of how XML documents are structured.

Thank You Ulf and Matthew..! That's all I needed to know if it was well formed by definition or not.