Andy wrote:
>Glenn Marcy wrote:
>> Perhaps another useful parameter would be the name of the entity
>> that you are resolving.
>
>That's what I was referring to. For example, if your document
>contained "&entity;" which is defined in the following DTD:
>
> [snip]
Sorry, I was confused as to your meaning of a "name" parameter,
since you could have meant "root element type name" instead of
entity name.
>So would adding the single name parameter work for most people.
>And what about Jim Gan's suggestion of adding a "type" parameter?
Well, Jim wrote:
>It would be great if one more parameter is added to indicate
>the entity is a DTD, a general entity or a XML schema.
>The idea here is that schema/dtd caching can be better
>managed at application level and schema/dtd can be provided
>to the parser.
I think that an entity name of "[dtd]" ala SAX would cover the
first case, and the "name" vs. "%name" handles the general vs.
parameter entity case. I am not sure about the schema case as
the relationship between resolveEntity and resolveGrammar is
still "under construction". If we did have an entity name that
was to represent resolving a schema, what would we want to pass
as a name? As simple as "[schema]" or something more complicated
including the namespace?
-Glenn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
