W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Faulty DTD of Object element

From: Gregor Karlinger <Gregor.Karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:16:04 +0100
Message-ID: <38B63A44.487BAFC3@iaik.at>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
CC: ML W3C XML-Signature <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
"Joseph M. Reagle Jr." wrote:

> Ed is correct about the statement regarding ANY. (ANY = element types within
> the DTD). Consequently, we use #PCDATA. XML1.0 does permit MIXED content
> models:

Sorry, I did not know the exact meaning of #PCDATA (see below). With the
definition Ed gives for it , the DTD of Object seems to be what it should be ;-)

[...]

>         <!ELEMENT b (#PCDATA)>

[...]

> Such that we could do the following:
>         <!ELEMENT Object ((#PCDATA  | SignatureProperties | Manifest)*) >
>         <!ELEMENT KeyValue  ((#PCDATA | DSAKeyValue | RSAKeyValue )*) >

[...]

> However, while I can get XMetalPro to compile and validate instances with
> that declaration, I can't get IE (and I'm not sure if my declaration is bugg
> or not ...) so I avoid them.

I have also made this experience with a XML parser API from Sun: If I declare

  <!ELEMENT Object (#PCDATA)>

then the instance

  <Object>
    <ATag>Some text</ATag>
  </Object>

does not validate. The validating API parser throws an exception because it
only expects character data. So this parser does not behave like #PCDATA
is intended to mean (as Ed described in his contribution).

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Karlinger
mailto://gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------



Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 03:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:09 GMT