Deterministic behavior in processors

[John Cowan]

David Brownell wrote:

> And maybe more.  For example, it's very useful to see the
> first validation error be "no DTD provided"!!  :-)

My point is that there is no such Validation Constraint.
A WF document that doesn't have a DTD will always provoke
at least one "VC:Element Valid" error, since a WF document
has to have at least one element.  But having a DTD
is not *as such* a VC.

It's true that there's nothing in the spec preventing
parsers from reporting errors where there are no errors:
presumably that is a QOI issue.
 
> > Note that clause 1.2 says validation errors should be
> > reported at user option, whereas clause 5.1 says validation
> > errors must be reported, period.
> 
> The XML editors should know about such internal inconsistencies
> in the spec, and address this in the errata or a forthcoming
> revision of the document.
> 
> > I note that "fatal errors" are of only three kinds:  failure to be
> > WF, an encoding declaration specifying an encoding the processor
> > cannot handle, and disallowed entity references (no unparsed entity
> > refs, no general entity refs in the DTD, no external entity refs in
> > attribute values).
> 
> But (following on an earlier thread) if you don't handle
> external entities, you're not required to report all WF
> errors ... sigh.
> 
> - Dave

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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