[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Indeed. The bare minimum requirements for a non-validating XML parser
are unambiguous and hardly onerous. I'm tired of people making gross
generalizations and using them as excuses for nonconformance, as if the
complexity of the XML rec approached that of WXS.
Going back into occasional digest perusal mode...
Evan
John Cowan wrote:
> Mike Champion scripsit:
>
> > I'm not sure what "processing" a DTD means in a technical sense.
Accepting
> > the entity declarations, setting the default attribute values, etc.
but
> > not enforcing any content model constraints? Or just parsing DTDs
and
> > ignoring everthing in there. (IIRC either would be "legal" for a
non-
> > validating parser). What would you suggest J2ME parsers do?
>
> Only the first course of action is legal for a conformant XML parser,
> as Section 5.1 of the XML Rec makes abundantly clear. For minimal
> conformance, a parser has to parse the entire internal subset and
report
> on well-formedness errors, *and* act on ENTITY, ATTLIST, and NOTATION
> declarations it finds there (ELEMENT declarations can be ignored).
> Consequently, internal entities must be properly expanded, attribute
> defaulting and attribute-value normalization must be properly done,
and
> declared notations must be reported to the application.
>
> In addition, a minimal parser must not process any declarations that
> appear in the internal subset after a reference to a parameter entity.
>
> Code that doesn't do these things isn't an XML parser (it may
honorably
> be something else, of course).
>
> --
> John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
cowan@ccil.org
> To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.
There
> are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the
language
> that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was
wonderful.
--_The Hobbit_
|
