W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Erratum in section 1.1 of Canonical XML

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 07:39:32 -0400
Message-Id: <p04330100b7202d34c4dd@[]>
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 5:22 PM -0700 5/9/01, John Boyer wrote:

Actually, I think the fact that there is NOT a HUGE difference is 
precisely why we are having this conversation in the first place. 
You're using the first couple of sentences in the so-called 
definition to make a distinction that really doesn't make a lot of 
difference.  You cannot introduce a document type 'definition' into 
an XML document without a DOCTYPE, and you cannot have a DOCTYPE 
which does not introduce a document type 'definition'.

Actually you can. Consider this legal DOCTYPE



In fact the grammar even allows:


These are legal document type declarations according to production 28:

'<!DOCTYPE' S Name (S ExternalID)? S? ('[' (markupdecl | DeclSep)* ']' S?)? '>'

However, there's no DTD anywhere in sight. Needless to say, a 
document which contained such a document type declaration would not 
be valid, but validity is not required.  Such a document could be 

| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
|                  The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999)                   |
|              http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/               |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/   |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/     |
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 10:05:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:35 UTC