Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: WFC "Entity Declared" vs. VC "Entity Declared" (for GEs, PEs)
- From: Tatu Saloranta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:35:29 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gvgPgzukQnN+3miQQKd2MwrVm5LB4d+LmY1vlVUgzPgNzCqmrLtE0Gk6yScL3VY5AYbGSQudNtaGvaw/pOLpUcXJJIGzwN28ytED6n9wIqYS7nqmpSGuoq5uc2YXJfMmBMIz6X1im2vJqrR57Ci9Rk+1xn3t3kDZP6nc5bdd8Ys= ;
I am trying to understand the exact distinction
regarding declaration of entities; specifically, under
which conditions are missing declarations of entities
validity, and under which well-formedness, violations.
Description of these constraints under 4.1 seem bit
unclear; especially regarding difference between
undeclared (or only externally declared) general and
parameter entity references.
Now, it does look like undeclared PEs can only result
in a VC (since  does not have WFC). Is this
correct? So that independent of value of 'standalone'
pseudo-attribute, it is only an error (not fatal
error) to encounter an undeclared PE?. Or are there
some cases where an undeclared PE would be considered
Or regarding GEs; are there cases where undeclared GE
would only be a VC? (perhaps if standalone = 'no', and
external subset contains a default attribute
declaration that refers to an [as-of-yet] undeclared
-+ Tatu +-
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around