[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
- From: Rob Lugt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Brownell <email@example.com>,Richard Tobin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:42:56 +0100
David Brownell wrote
> > >The only definition for the Sun canonical form that I have found is the
> > >packaged with the conformance tests. This is labelled "Draft 1" and
> > >as you state, indicate that the DTD should appear first. ...
> > Mine doesn't output PIs from the DTD at all.
> I think that the logical course would be to require that all PIs (before
> or within the DTD) be reported in document order. PIs within the
> DTD would be either before or after the declarations.
Agreed, this makes much more sense. This still leaves the question of
whether PIs within the DTD should be included.
> Call that a bug in the canonical form definitions. (Did the W3C ever fix
> xml stuff so it was usable in such contexts?)
Not sure what you mean. The W3C canonicalization algorithm does not allow
for a DTD in the canonical form. PIs are output in document order.
> Anything else would seem to drop the requirements of the XML spec
> that PIs be reported. If that happens, then the XML spec would
> need to be revised (and this isn't a case where that should happen).
I don't quiet see your point, but I agree that we don't want to need XML 1.0