Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jeff Rafter wrote: >>Bonus questions: Which wins out: "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD" >>[3] or "Not Recognized" [4] >>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#indtd >>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#not-recognized Karl Waclawek answered: > I have always found "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD" redundant, > as due to "Not Recognized", you cannot define PE references outside of the DTD. > So, "Not Recognized" wins, and the above entity declaration is legal. Just to make sure everyone else is as sick of this minutia as I am I thought I would take this a step further. Consider: Doc5.xml ======== <!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "doc5.dtd"> <doc>&gen_foo;</doc> Doc5.dtd ======== <!ELEMENT doc (foo)> <!ELEMENT foo EMPTY> <!ENTITY % pe_foo "<foo>"> <!ENITY gen_foo "%pe_foo;</foo>"> Now, the replacement text for gen_foo after it is scanned becomes: %pe_foo;</foo> It is obvious that the reference to gen_foo would violate WFness. The question is: is this a PE inside the DTD and inside content-- thus violating "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD" while simultaneously being "recognized"? : ) All the best, Jeff Rafter
|
