papresco at technologist.com
Fri May 8 21:43:53 BST 1998
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
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev