• To: richard@c...
• Subject: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:07:38 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200310231024.LAA20896@m...> (message fromRichard Tobin on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:24:21 +0100 (BST))
• References: <200310231024.LAA20896@m...>

> By the way, if you really want to do this, you can technically make
> undefined entities not be well-formedness errors by using a trivial
> DTD that refers to a parameter entity, e.g.

>  <!DOCTYPE foo [
>  <!ENTITY % dummy "<!-- a comment -->">
>  %dummy;
>  ]>
>  <foo>this document is &well-formed;</foo>

Yes exactly, which is why i think that just relaxing things not to
require a spurious dtd is something that _should_ have been in scope for
consideration in a 1.1 point release.

David


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________

• References:
  • Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Next by Date: Re: Regd XML algorithms !!
• Previous by thread: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Next by thread: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread