> "Peter A. Volchek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But, why not provide the (let name it advanced api ) additional feature,
> > which allows to suppress it? (especially, when so many people require
it).
> > At least, it may be put in the protected area of a parser, so that it
might
> > be used, only by those people who really knows what they are required.
>
> Ok, so there already seems to be a solution, create an entity resolver
> and handle it, right?
>
> The question then becomes, is this really such a common case, should a
> flag be added to the parser to ignore the lack of a DTD.
>
> Seems to me if you know ahead of time, you won't have the DTD, why not
> create the entity resolver? Is it that much overhead?
>
> jas.
I do not know whether dtd exists or not.
I want the xml be parsed in both cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
