xml-dev - Re: SAX2 Event Sequence [Was: Re: SAX2: relative orderingofstartDocument

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

David Megginson wrote:
> 
> Michael Fuller writes:
> 
>  > I'm not sure if that's the case. I've partially wrapped SP and (without
>  > actually checking ;-), I've got a funny feeling that it may not always
>  > report DTD events in lexical order. Regardless, given that a DTD is loosely
>  > unordered (other than needing to define entities before their use), is there
>  > any useful reason to constrain parsers to a lexical ordering of DTD events?
> 
> I don't think so, but I think that they should be properly nested in
> start/endEntity events (or maybe not -- do people care?).

I do care that either PE reporting should get "fixed" somehow, to address
issues like

	<![ %maybe; [ <!-- markupdecl --> ]]>
	<!ATTLIST foo %core.attrs; %i18n.attrs; %etc; >

or that PE reporting be completely removed.

Also, it seems wrong that there be a requirement that PE inclusion events be
lexically scoped ("properly nested" etc) while other DTD events not be scoped
in that way.  Consistency is a virtue ... either always do it, or never.

At this point my preferred resolution would be to say (a) PE inclusion MUST
NOT be reported, (b) declarations in the DTD may be reported in any order.
I could go either way on (b) but it seems least trouble overall.

- Dave

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************