• To: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:10:33 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4203A46F.6050704@w...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...><200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...><4202A983.6030803@z...><4202C65B.7000207@o...><6.0.0.22.0.20050204175833.022d1828@p...><4203A46F.6050704@w...>

At 18:35 4.2.2005, you wrote:
>Toni Uusitalo wrote:
>
>>The following document is well-formed (and valid too but that's not the 
>>point) but very troublesome to parse for MSXML (IE6 crashes) and Expat. 
>>Works ok with RXP and Parsifal - haven't test others.
>
>Worked fine with current Expat.

Yes. I tested with the current version - It works. But I think the point 
still remains - it's not easy to get the DTD parameter entity expansion 
right ;-)


with respect,
Toni Uusitalo

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread