Is validity an option?

[David Brownell]

> > SAX2, on the other hand, can take a stab classifying
> > its parsers (as could the DOM).
> 
> That would be helpful.

The OASIS XML conformance working group has talked about this
a bit ... it turns out that while there's only one type of
validating processor, there are at least four types of
nonvalidating ones based on what external entities they read:

	parameter entities ... then they normalize attributes
		and expand entities

	general entities ... then they don't drop content

	both ... gee, they're almost the same as a validating
		parser that doesn't report validity errors, and
		might not report ignorable whitespace or unparse
		entities (but they could do the latter if they
		want to)

	neither ... not all that interesting :-)

Arguably one can make inclusion be conditional, but that
rapidly gets nonsensical!

I think that the "both" case is the most useful one in terms of
"write once, run anywhere" portable code.

- dave

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)