[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Richard Tobin <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:04:19 -0700
> > 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.
> I took it to apply to both. It would be peculiar to embed the
> statement in a paragraph about system identifiers if it didn't apply
> to them.
That clause was indeed rather peculiar. At best it was an incomplete
thought; the spec has no business leaving the door open to retrospective
re-interpretation of data that's already been parsed/interpreted.
> I assume by "those examples" you mean "a special XML element type
> defined by a particular DTD, or ...
That in particular was bizarre, yes. <xhtml:base> (or xml:base attributes)
would be in the body of the document, so why the heck would they even
need to be mentioned in a section talking about the DTD? The same is
true for _any_ application level semantics (such as PIs).