Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Schach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:19:00 -0700
> >All parsers (i.e. tools that take XML documents and apply the
> criteria in
> >XML-LANG only) should state their attitude and behaviour to WFness
> >The possible options include at least:
> > - nsgmls-like. Full validation is the only option. Any
> > dcoument is flagged and appropriate error messages or
> > action is initiated.
> > - Lark-like (at least V0.88 - I think there is another coming).
> > validation can be attempted. Any 'output' can only be
> WF or
> > in error. NOTE: what does Lark do with the internal
> > - NXP-like. Validation can be switched on or off by the
> > How this is transmitted to the application is
> > dependent at present.
> > - MSXML-like. Undocumented at present. Possibly [though Terry
> and I
> > hope not] validating by default, and changing to WF if
> > fails.
[David Schach] The XML spec seems to address this issue in
section 2.20 Required Markup Declaration.
In an RMD, the value NONE indicates that an XML
processor can parse the document correctly without first reading any
part of the DTD. The value INTERNAL indicates that the XML processor
must read and process the internal subset of the DTD, if provided, to
parse the containing document correctly. The value ALL indicates that
the XML processor must read and process the declarations in both the
subsets of the DTD, if provided, to parse the containing document
If no RMD is provided, an XML processor must behave as
though an RMD had been provided with the value ALL. [David Schach]
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (email@example.com)