* James Cerra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-30 03:20]:
> > >> Depending on an entity reference and not being able to
> > >> accept the straight replacement text is just wrong.
> > >
> > > I agree. I'm just bringing up possible incompatibilities
> > > for debate!
> >
> > I don't think that's an incompatibility that deserves
> > catering for.
>
> Why not? Why be incompatible for the sake of incompatibility?
> That's just asking for trouble when Atom is used in ways not
> originally envisioned (and there always are).
That’s bogus. Some software generates or processes non-wellformed
XML. Should Atom cater to that too? If not, where do you draw the
line between somewhat-broken software that Atom should support
and really-broken software that it should not?
> HTML currently uses doctypes for switching between versions of
> the langauage.
No, it doesn’t. Browsers do so, but only as a hack; the idea is
that an author who puts a DOCTYPE declaration in their document
*probably* cares about validity and so his document should
*probably* be treated as strict standards compliance requires.
But there is nothing in any spec that justifies this behaviour.
> There is no other way to properly interpret content without
> guessing in the current drafts. That is a worse sin inflicted
> upon programmers, than allowing the subset that do rendering to
> do naughty DOCTYPE sniffing.
You don’t seem to understand XML. XML has something called
namespaces. Use them.
> > > No, any well formed XML processor MUST expand internal
> > > entities and add replaced attributes as well. This is NOT
> > > OPTIONAL.
> >
> > So is expat non-conforming?
>
> If it doesn't, then it is non-conforming.
Wrong.
> That's how non-validating XML processors are defined by the
> spec. I quote from section 5.1 paragraph 4:
>
> [Definition: While they are not required to check the document
> for validity, they are REQUIRED to process all the declarations
> they read in the internal DTD subset and in any parameter
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> entity that they read, up to the first reference to a parameter
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> entity that they do not read; that is to say, they MUST use the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> information in those declarations to normalize attribute
> values, include the replacement text of internal entities, and
> supply default attribute values.]
>
> There is no room for any other interpretation, I think.
Nowhere is a non-validating processor REQUIRED to read an
external DTD in the spec. Only *internal* declarations MUST be
processed and references resolved.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
