Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
