DOCTYPE misunderstood

[Richard Light]

In message <199705091222.HAA169162 at tigger.cc.uic.edu>, C M Sperberg-
McQueen <cmsmcq at tigger.cc.uic.edu> writes
>On Fri, 9 May 1997 07:49:34 +0100, Richard Light wrote: 
>
>>While it would be generally agreed that you can't gratuitously stick any
>>old <!DOCTYPE header onto a piece of well-formed XML, I think there is a
>>case for architecting XML so that you _can_ hold the naked XML without
>>_any_ header information, and prepend both DOCTYPE and style processing
>>instructions at delivery time.
>
>I think there is a case for saying XML has in fact been so designed,
>and that what you want to do is already possible.
>
>Am I missing something?  

No, it's me.  I think I've been muddled by the RMD rules.  It says that
"If no RMD is provided, an XML processor must behave as though an RMD
had been provided with value ALL".  So I was thinking that a "naked
chunk" would require an RMD of:

<?XML version="1.0" RMD="NONE">

in order that the XML processor knows that it "can parse the containing
document correctly without reading any part of the DTD".  But presumably
this is "parsing" in the sense of reading a _valid_ instance rather than
a _well-formed_ one?

Richard Light.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa at ic.ac.uk)