W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2005

FW: [2.1] restricting redefinition of DTD internal subset

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:45:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020155C006@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Norm and I will both be traveling next week,
but I thought I'd forward this along now to
see if it starts any email discussion.

paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Oshry [mailto:matto@tellme.com] 
Sent: Friday, 2005 November 11 16:34
To: Grosso, Paul; Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM
Cc: w3c-voice-wg@w3.org
Subject: [2.1] restricting redefinition of DTD internal subset

Hi, Paul and Norm,

When last we corresponded, you helped the Voice Browser WG (VBWG) to
resolve an issue with the use of processing instructions to define the
security policy on an XML document.

Having moved beyond that issue, I'm currently editing the VoiceXML 2.1
CR so that the VBWG can transition the spec to PR status. I am hoping
you and your WG could help us (peacefully) resolve the following issue.

In [1], Bjoern Hoehrmann points out a loophole in the VoiceXML 2.0 and
VoiceXML 2.1 specifications having to do with redefinition within the
DTD subset. In F1 of VoiceXML 2.0 [2] and C1 of VoiceXML 2.1 [3] we
stated

"The DTD subset must not be used to override any parameter entities in
the DTD."

This, as Bjoern points out, does not disallow overriding of attribute
definitions. What we would like to say in VoiceXML 2.1 is more akin to
SMIL 2.1 [4]:

"If a document contains this declaration, it must be a valid XML
document. Note that this implies that extensions to the syntax defined
in the DTD are not allowed."

The VBWG would like to replace the above text in VoiceXML 2.1 with the
following:

"Since the DTD for a document consists of both the external and internal
subset, a conforming document must not include an internal subset when
referencing the VoiceXML 2.1 DTD."

You can see this in context at [5].

Bjoern indicated in [6] that he would be willing to accept our proposed
change upon XML Core WG review.

Would you and XML Core be willing to weigh in on this?

Matt Oshry
Chief Editor, VoiceXML 2.1

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005AprJun/0088.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/voicexml20/#dmlAConformance
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/voicexml21/#sec-conform-doc
[4]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/smil21-profile.html#SMILProf
ileNS-ConformingDocuments
[5]
http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2005/voicexml21-wd/voicexml21-diff.html#se
c-conform-doc
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005OctDec/0040.html
Received on Friday, 11 November 2005 22:46:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT