Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
David Megginson writes:
> Paul Prescod writes:
> > Let me risk another step into the language courtroom. Validating
> > parsers must always read the whole DTD. So the SDD is only for
> > non-validating parsers. Non-validating parsers do not read element
> > type declarations. So what is the point of this line:
> Your first premise is correct, but your second one is not. The spec
> states that a validating parser must use the whole DTD; it does not
> state that a non-validating parser may not use the DTD. AElfred, for
> example, reads the DTD well enough that it can even flag ignorable
> whitespace base on an element type's content model, but it is
..which means, if your parser is not a validating parser, what you receive
and can do will vary. We have a "grayness" between well-formed and
validating that doesn't sit too well.
> That said, I still agree that the standalone declaration is wrong.
> Perhaps some day, if there's an XML 1.1, we can think about fixing it.
Absolutely. We need well defined classes of parsers so that implementors
and users can require a certain level of processing. We also need
conformance test suites for these each class of parser.
Currently, validating parsers are the only real *safe* bet.
R. Alexander Milowski firstname.lastname@example.org (612) 825-4132 v|e|o
MOS | sed s/SG/X/g > DYX
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)