[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
- From: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:27:49 -0700
> >> James Clark pointed out  that the proposal (with his modifications)
> >> moves SAX more into line with the XML Infoset specification .
> > But that would apply only to UNPARSED entities (or presumably notations).
> The Infoset also has Unexpanded Entity Reference items for use by
> parsers that do not expand external general entities.
Those are another type of "unparsed" entity -- a parser reporting that
it _didn't_ parse, rather than that it _mustn't_ parse! :)
> doesn't the XML spec
> give specific permission for system ids to *not* be interpreted relative
> to the "expected" base URI?
> Unless otherwise provided by information outside the scope of this
> specification ...
I always took that "unless" clause to apply to relative URIs showing up somewhere
in document content, not in the DTD; all those examples were of that type, and
the rest of that sentence (and paragraph, and section!) clearly applies to URIs as
declared within the DTD, not to any of the cases in that clause's examples.
A simpler way to put that: application level URIs are out of scope. "xml:base"
can legally affect how an "xhtml:href" instance is interpreted, because that's
being done by the application not by the XML processor.