Because there is no good API from the XML modules for it AFAIK.

Anyway syntax checking is done automatically - you get an error mark
on the script if it is malformed - and DTD validation is nearly
useless for Ant scripts.

well, so you mean it won't be usefull if there would be good XML API?

Originaly I wanted to enter this bug against XML module, but Petr
persuade me, that's ANT responsibility.

What in this case I shold do if I insist to be all xml files treated
in the same way?

thanks in advance,
-dan

There are other areas, including things much more important than this,
where it would be desirable to have better alignment between the
behavior of Ant scripts and general XML files, but which are
impossible due to the lack of well-maintained or actively developed
APIs from the XML modules. For example: reliable structural editing of
Ant scripts, ability to affect the context menu in the Ant editor,
proper namespace handling in Ant code completion, etc.

I waited for several years for such APIs to be developed or improved,
but that never happened. (There is also some critical functionality
missing from the editor module, such as merging more than 2 levels of
settings for editor kits - filed in the editor module for a long time
but untouched.) So I have given up and tried to minimize the
dependencies of the Ant module on the XML modules - currently just
uses the code completion facility (which is very buggy and incomplete
but enough for most purposes).

If you want to treat Ant scripts as plain XML files, turn off the Ant
module, or disable its MIME resolver, or fool with the Object Types
pool a bit. Cleanly merging the functionalities is not currently feasible.

Thank you Jesse for your valuable feetback even thought it sounds very
negatively...

>There are other areas, including things much more important than
>this, where it would be desirable to have better alignment between 
>the behavior of Ant scripts and general XML files,

Yes definitely, that's true. But also small, unimportant things if
they are good, make good impression of the whole product.
Thus I hope that you didn't mean to ignore them, but treat them with
appropriate priority (which is not P2 as I fire it originaly).

Following examples are good candidates for RFE. Thanks for mentioning
them :-)
>For example: reliable structural editing of
>Ant scripts, ability to affect the context menu in the Ant editor,
>proper namespace handling in Ant code completion, etc.

>I waited for several years for such APIs to be developed or improved,
>but that never happened.
I don't believe you, that you've been just sitting and waiting so many
years for such nice, robus and stable API which would satisfied your
needs.
What's happens with your requirements? Are there recorded somewhere?
I'd like to resusciate them 


> (There is also some critical functionality
>missing from the editor module, such as merging more than 2 levels of
>settings for editor kits - filed in the editor module for a long time
>but untouched.) 
Sad, sad, sad ... 

>If you want to treat Ant scripts as plain XML files, turn off the Ant
>module, or disable its MIME resolver, or fool with the Object Types
>pool a bit. Cleanly merging the functionalities is not currently
>feasible.
It's not thing which satisfaid my needs. It's workaround.

I try the mentioned RFE enter into IZ and push on development to
implement them.

Issue #20532 records XML API requests. Check the dep tree; as you can
see, for D I removed structure editing of Ant scripts since it was
unsupportable, and worked around a few other minor things that seemed
important. BTW this issue is really duplicate of #10219. Probably
Check could be enabled; I have no plans to work on it any time soon,
but will leave it open.

Thank you very much for answering my questions Jesse.

I'm marking it as a dup of the bug you said

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 10219 ***

This is a dup of issue #10219 as Jesse found