David Megginson writes:

> 
> Paul Prescod writes:
> 
>  > Let me risk another step into the language courtroom. Validating
>  > parsers must always read the whole DTD. So the SDD is only for
>  > non-validating parsers. Non-validating parsers do not read element
>  > type declarations. So what is the point of this line:
> 
> 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.

..which means, if your parser is not a validating parser, what you receive
and can do will vary.  We have a "grayness" between well-formed and
validating that doesn't sit too well.
 
> 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.

Absolutely.  We need well defined classes of parsers so that implementors
and users can require a certain level of processing.  We also need 
conformance test suites for these each class of parser.

Currently, validating parsers are the only real *safe* bet.

=============================================================================
R. Alexander Milowski      alex@veosystems.com     (612) 825-4132       v|e|o
                          MOS | sed s/SG/X/g > DYX



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