Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 06:51:30 -0700
At 09:18 AM 5/8/98 -0400, Paul Prescod wrote:
>But that's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned because I believe
>this to be a valid XML document:
><?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
><!DOCTYPE MEMO SYSTEM "http://www.sgmlsource.com/memo.dtd" [
><!ENTITY % mess-everything-up SYSTEM "mess.ent">
><!ATTLIST MEMO SECURITY CDATA "TOP-SECRET">
>In my opinion, section 5.1 will require the non-validating parser to skip
>the attribute list declaration, even if memo.dtd is an empty file.
Welll, it can't be valid if memo.dtd is an empty file, because you
don't have <!ELEMENT memo .. > anywhere. But yes, 5.1 suggests the
attribute default shouldn't be used.
>The receiver has no way of knowing that this case has occured if it uses a
If the sender is stupid enough to send something like this to a
non-validating parser, he gets what he deserves. If it's a validating
parser, then of course the emptiness of memo.dtd will be detected.
> (since XML's semantics are, for the moment at least,
>imprecisely specified, I only know what that means intuitively ... SAX,
>Lark, Expat, etc. would not give you enough information to detect this
>This to me suggest that applications cannot trust the SDD and it must
>therefore be presumed to be meaningless.
You do raise a good question; it would seem that standalone='true'
*ought* to mean that the rule of 5.1 about the effect of
external PE refs could be ignored. Hmmmm -Tim
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)