SDD again

[Paul Prescod]

David Megginson wrote:
> 
> Your first premise is correct, but your second one is not.  The spec
> states that a validating parser must use the whole DTD; it does not
> state that a non-validating parser may not use the DTD.  AElfred, for
> example, reads the DTD well enough that it can even flag ignorable
> whitespace base on an element type's content model, but it is
> non-validating.

You are right. I guess when I think of parsers, I prefer to think of them
as interchangable within a class, so I would be leery about trusting
features that only overachievers like you implement. :)
 
> That said, I still agree that the standalone declaration is wrong.
> Perhaps some day, if there's an XML 1.1, we can think about fixing it.

Probably better to deprecate it. And as soon as possible!

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Can we afford to feed that army, 
 while so many children are naked and hungry?
Can we afford to remain passive, 
 while that soldier-army is growing so massive?
  - "Gabby" Barbadian Calpysonian in "Boots"

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)