• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: Michael Fuller <msf@i...>
• Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:09:25 -0500 (EST)

Michael Fuller writes:

 > I'm not sure if that's the case. I've partially wrapped SP and (without
 > actually checking ;-), I've got a funny feeling that it may not always
 > report DTD events in lexical order. Regardless, given that a DTD is loosely
 > unordered (other than needing to define entities before their use), is there
 > any useful reason to constrain parsers to a lexical ordering of DTD events?

I don't think so, but I think that they should be properly nested in
start/endEntity events (or maybe not -- do people care?).


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX2 Event Sequence [Was: Re: SAX2: relative orderingofstartDocument() & startDTD() events?]
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.
• Next by Date: FW: New SVG spec
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.
• Next by thread: Re: SAX2 Event Sequence [Was: Re: SAX2: relative orderingofstartDocument() & startDTD() events?]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread