[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeff Rafter wrote:
>>Bonus questions: Which wins out: "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD"
>>[3] or "Not Recognized" [4]
>>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#indtd
>>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#not-recognized
Karl Waclawek answered:
> I have always found "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD" redundant,
> as due to "Not Recognized", you cannot define PE references outside of the DTD.
> So, "Not Recognized" wins, and the above entity declaration is legal.
Just to make sure everyone else is as sick of this minutia as I am I
thought I would take this a step further. Consider:
Doc5.xml
========
<!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "doc5.dtd">
<doc>&gen_foo;</doc>
Doc5.dtd
========
<!ELEMENT doc (foo)>
<!ELEMENT foo EMPTY>
<!ENTITY % pe_foo "<foo>">
<!ENITY gen_foo "%pe_foo;</foo>">
Now, the replacement text for gen_foo after it is scanned becomes:
%pe_foo;</foo>
It is obvious that the reference to gen_foo would violate WFness. The
question is: is this a PE inside the DTD and inside content-- thus
violating "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD" while simultaneously
being "recognized"? : )
All the best,
Jeff Rafter
|
