xml-dev - SAX2: entity reporting madnessorderingofstartDocument() & startDTD() eve

[David Megginson <david@megginson.com>]

David Brownell writes:

 > 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.

Again, would it be sufficient if we reported only *external* PEs?

 > 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.

Way back in once-upon-an-SGML-time, people cared about this kind of
thing so that they would know which declarations appeared in which
external entities (i.e. what's in the internal subset and what's in
the external DTD subset and what's in a fragment that the DTD subset
refers to).  If no one cares about this kind of thing any more, than
perhaps it would be better to leave out PE reporting, or to allow it
only for the external DTD subset with no finer-grained distinctions.
What do people want.

 > 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.

I'd love (b) as well.  In fact, I'd love to drop DeclHandler and
LexicalHandler altogether, but I know that I sound like a broken
record.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************