Validating parser ignoring start tag?

Question

Hello
There appears to be a discrepency between what (I think a) validating parser (SAXParser) should do and what it's doing. An echo program using the following DTD
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!-- Document Type Definition for the AList.xml -->
<!ELEMENT AList (ASet+)                            >
<!ELEMENT ASet  (B+)                               >
<!ATTLIST ASet  name CDATA             #REQUIRED   >
<!ELEMENT B     (C, D)                             >
<!ATTLIST B     name   CDATA           #REQUIRED   >
<!ELEMENT C     EMPTY                              >
<!ATTLIST C     type  (x | y | z)      #REQUIRED   >
<!ELEMENT D     EMPTY                              >
<!ATTLIST D     value  CDATA           #REQUIRED   >and the xml file
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!-- Copyright Lori A. Cook. 2000-2004 -->
<!-- All rights reserved.              -->
<!DOCTYPE AList SYSTEM "AList.dtd"   >
<AList>
  <ASet name="test">
    <B name="testb">
      <C type="x" />
      <D value="abc" />
    </B>
  </ASet>
</AList>produces the following output when the "ASet" tag is removed or commented out
START DOCUMENT
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
    ELEMENT: <AList>
        ELEMENT: <B  ATTR: name     "testb" >
            ELEMENT: <C  ATTR: type     "x" >
            END_ELM: </>
            ELEMENT: <D ATTR: value     "abc" >
            END_ELM: </>
        END_ELM: </>When the ASet tag is missing or commented out the parser throws a SAXParseException about 'The element type "AList" must be terminated by the matching end-tag "</AList>"'. Since this is a validating parser why doesn't it throw an error upon not seeing ASet?
(inquiring minds want to know)
Lori <*>

Answer 1

To do a validation check validate with
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <!-- Copyright Lori A. Cook. 2000-2004 --><!-- All rights reserved. --><!DOCTYPE AList SYSTEM "AList.dtd" ><AList> <ASet name="test"><ASet> <B name="testb"> <C type="x" /> <D value="abc" /> </B></ASet> </ASet></AList>
thanks,
Deepak