It seems that this discussion is one best addressed by the XML spec
community and not here. The real question is should a non-validating
parse raise a fatal error if it cannot locate the DTD specified in the
DOCTYPE? Currently, this seems to be an implementation issue. Xerces
does it one way and other parsers handle it a different way.
We can rant and rave all we want, but really it's up to them.
jas.
"Bil Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DTDs can indeed "cause a lot of other stuff to happen" but
> non-validating parsers can only be relied upon to make that
> stuff happen using the internal subset. Defaulting attributes,
> expanding entities, etc. are all vital things but if you are
> using a non-validating parser, your definitions HAVE to be in
> the internal subset or your document just might not end up
> being well-formed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Roddey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP: SAX parser errors on validation when
> ValScheme=V al_Never?????
>
>
> As a practical matter, DTDs are not just about validation. They cause a lot
> other stuff to happen. In most cases, people who are not validating still
> very much want it to be processed and want to know if anything goes wrong.
> So don't get too tied up on DTDs being just a validation mechanism. Some
> people think thats a bad thing, that DTDs aren't just about structural
> validation, but that's the way it is. I know that, even if I don't need any
> structural validation, I'd like default and fixed attributes to be
> generated, for entity references to be recognized and expanded, notations
> that I've defined to be recognized, ID/IDREF stuff to be checked, the types
> of attributes to be checked against their definitions, etc... None of those
> things are related to how many X's can be inside a Y, but they are all
> driven by the DTD. And I don't necessarily want to have to do validation in
> order to get these things to happen.
>
> --------------------------
> Dean Roddey
> The CIDLib C++ Frameworks
> Charmed Quark Software
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.charmedquark.com
>
> "Why put off until tomorrow what you can
> put off until the day after tomorrow?"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bil Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:39 AM
> Subject: RE: PLEASE HELP: SAX parser errors on validation when ValScheme=V
> al_Never?????
>
>
> > I think I see what you are saying but I thought
> > the whole point of Section 5 of the spec. was
> > that skipping external entities would cause non-
> > validating parsers to act differently than
> > validating ones, possibly missing some well-
> > formedness errors:
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================= Confidentiality Statement =======================
> The information contained in this message and any attachments is
> intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
> addressed, and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL
> and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received
> this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or
> using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return
> e-mail and delete the original message from your system.
> ===================== End Confidentiality Statement =====================
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
