Subject: Re: Microsot parser is OK (Was: Re: Copyright symbol in FOP) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:42:30 +0100 (BST) |
> Definitely so. This kind of expression is blamed as non-well-formed n the XML > Spec, and parsers (even non-validating ones) are obliged to report deviations > from well-formedness in the whole document including the DTD. replacement texts of entities are only required to be well formed if they are referenced, strange but true. (xml spec section 2.1, point 3) It is arguable that the declaration of lt as "<" in the xmlspec does not break this rule as the predefined entity takes precedence. That's what happens with a web sgml system, where lt declared in the sgml declaration for xml acts as if at the beginning of the local subset. The xml spec is rather vague on whetehr predefined entities count for the `first definition wins' rule that applies to normal entity declarations. The declaration of lt as "<" contravenes the prose constraint that lt must be declared to be a reference to the < character, but that is not, as such, a well formedness constraint. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Microsot parser is OK (Was: Re:, Nikolai Grigoriev | Thread | RE: Microsot parser is OK (Was: Re:, Jonathan Marsh |
Re: Displaying every 2 element valu, Mike Brown | Date | Re: Displaying every 2 element valu, Mike Brown |
Month |