SAX2 RFD: LexicalHandler draft v.1.1

[David Megginson]

Don Park writes:

 > >The problem is that even if you don't care about entity boundaries,
 > >the XML 1.0 REC requires reporting of any entities that are not
 > >expanded (in the case, for example, of a non-validating parser that
 > >hasn't read the declaration in the external DTD subset).  As a result,
 > >in a literal reading of the spec, a fully-conformant XML 1.0 API can
 > >*never* treat attribute values simply as strings.  SAX 1.0 does so,
 > >and no one has ever minded, but conformance is conformance...
 > 
 > The XML REC uses the word 'report' a lot but wisely does get into what
 > reporting means.  I think that as long as the information is available
 > on-demand through one mechanism or another, we can consider the reporting
 > requirement met.

Yes, I agree -- we *can* provide the attribute value as a string, but
we also have to make the alternative representation available in case
in 10 or 20 years someone actually needs it.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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)