Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I thought namespaces were a pain to implement. > > I have a question about "Validity constraint: Proper Declaration/PE > Nesting" [1] I understand that this is saying the following is violates > the VC: > > Doc1.dtd > ======== > <!ENTITY % e "<!-- a "> > <!ENTITY % f "%e;comment -->"> > > > Doc2.dtd > ======== > <!ENTITY % e "<!-- a "> I agree. > > But what about this: > > Doc3.dtd > ======== > <!ENTITY % e "<foo>"> > <!ENTITY % f "%e;</foo>"> > <!ENTITY g "%g;"> > > I think that it is legal but who knows anymore. As near as I can figure > it doesn't violate this VC because it is not a markup decl specifically. > Also, it is not a violation of "Validity constraint: Proper Group/PE > Nesting" [2]. I assume it is valid because of this text in 4.3.2 "An > internal general parsed entity is well-formed if its replacement text > matches the production labeled content. All internal parameter entities > are well-formed by definition." Yes, I agree. > Bonus questions: Which wins out: "Well-formedness constraint: In DTD" > [3] or "Not Recognized" [4] > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#vc-PEinMarkupDecl > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#vc-PEinGroup > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#indtd > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#not-recognized 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. Karl
|
