• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:13:56 +0100

On 23/10/2012 16:57, Michael Kay wrote:
> Does the grammar rule saying the name must be valid have a different
>  status from the extra-grammatical rule saying it must resolve?

well arguably it does as EntityRef is defined by the grammar so if you
have a bad name such as

<!ENTITY foo " &0000; " >

then the "bypassed" clause doesn't apply because it says
"When a general entity reference appears"
and &0000; isn't a general entity reference.

But making the spec say what it means here whenever there is a 6th
edition wouldn't hurt....


David


-- 
google plus: https:/profiles.google.com/d.p.carlisle

________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

• References:
  • Why are erroneous ENTITY declarations not caught in XML validation?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Why are erroneous ENTITY declarations not caught inXML validation?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Why are erroneous ENTITY declarations not caught inXML validation?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Why are erroneous ENTITY declarations not caught in XML validation?
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Why are erroneous ENTITY declarations not caught inXML validation?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>