• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
• To: "David Megginson" <david@m...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:45:48 -0500

aha!! that changes things :-)

I had incorrectly assumed you were making an argument that DTDs *ought* only
be used for validation to prevent the problem we have identified.

Beyond requiring that external entities and default attributes be expanded,
is there a way to allow non- and validating parsers to process the same XML
documents in a functionally similar fashion, that is, the same SAX events be
fired or the same DOM tree be constructed whether or not validation is
employed?

Jonathan

>Jonathan Borden writes:
> > David Megginson wrote:
> > >
> > >There *is* a potentially nasty problem lurking here: the DTD may
> > >contain default values for attributes as well as validation
> > >information.
> >
> >     If DTDs *were* only for validation...
>
>As was probably clear from the rest of my message, the subject line
>was meant to read "DTDs are not just for validation".
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David




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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is validity an option?
• Next by Date: Re: Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation
• Previous by thread: RE: Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation
• Next by thread: Re: Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread