[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "David Brownell" <david-b@pacbell.net>
- To: "Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:55:57 -0700
Per Richard Tobin:
> David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >This test is classified as "error", meaning that some parsers _may_
> >report errors (as below).
>
> I don't see any justification for not classifying it as valid.
While I might agree with you ...
> Certainly the entity is not well-formed, but since it is not referred
> to it does not affect the well-formedness of the document.
... others have in the past disagreed. And since W3C wasn't
(ready, willing, able -- pick at least one) to resolve the
relevant issue, that's why it got "error" classification.
The issue being whether it's legit to require that un-referred-to
entities be well formed. Remembering of course that MSXML is a
parser which does make some such demands ... the story I heard
attributed this need to the DOM DTD APIs.
"XML Editors using DOM L1", plus oodles of proprietary APIs that
rarely get mentioned when making this argument, "need to be able
to take those entities and create references. That couldn't be
done unless those entities are well formed."
- 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/
***************************************************************************
|
