• To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
• Subject: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 02:32:37 +0200
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <6b9b04fd561796e9df2f7c4649794ee5@i...>
• References: <1123780181.3496.27.camel@marge> <42FB8AF9.9080600@e...> <937259024a0c450a65b9a613a3d699d9@i...> <1123872120.3386.28.camel@marge> <6b9b04fd561796e9df2f7c4649794ee5@i...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I think specifying character entities in a DTD and expecting them to be 
> supported is a serious spec but in XHTML 1.x. Carrying this over to 
> XHTML 2.0 means that the HTML WG is in denial about the relationship of 
> DTDs and interactive user agents and wants to wish the consequences of 
> the XML spec away.

To be fair, there's nothing forbidding a browser from recognizing the 
public id used in the doctype and mapping that to a local copyy of the 
DTD, or even better to internal application knowledge of that DTD which 
may be needed (such as entity definitions). A lot of SVG 1.1 
implementations do that (for some defaulted attributes, not for 
entities, but it's all the same) with no impact whatsoever on 
performance. (And before anyone screams, that behaviour is deprecated in 
SVG 1.2, where no DTD will even be available.)

There are only so many things one can be in denial of :)

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Senior Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>

• References:
  • Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by Date: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Previous by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread