[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 5/17/02 9:42 AM, "Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org> wrote:
> It is the woefully non-existent XML processing model that must
> specify (or give the user the option to specify, or whatever) what
> happens in these scenarios -- should a non-DTD aware parser simply
> die when sees an entity reference? Should it quietly throw it away?
> Should Xincludes get passed thru as InfoSet items or expanded?
> In the meantime, all implementers can do is provide extensions to
> let the user choose what to do.
What XML parser isn't DTD aware? Perhaps I misread the XML document and
misinterpret the OASIS compliance tests, but it seems pretty clear that
there are two kinds of XML parser: validating, and non-validating. Both have
to read the DTD, parse it, and do certain things with it. Among the
non-validating parsers there are a few types: those that read the external
subset and those that don't. Even the ones that don't have to deal with the
internal subset.
>
> I don't think that the scenario in which all parsers anyone will
> encounter support DTDs is something we can simply assume. SOAP, and
> possibly XML 2.0 "core" don't/won't support anything specified in
> a DTD, so parsers optimized for a DTD-less profile will probably
> become more prevalent in the future. Thus it's not at all clear what
This statement you make about XML 2.0 I find a bit worrisome. Where are the
entity references going to be defined if not the DTD? Surely not the
schema?!?
> the "right thing" is, and providing the option of simply throwing
> away unexpandable entity references will be even more necessary.
Aside from the pre-defined entities, doesn't this mean all the entity
references if there is no DTD?
|
