Re: C.4 Undeclared entities?
At 1:20 PM 10/17/96, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>On 23 October 1996, the ERB will vote to decide the following
>question. A straw poll indicates the ERB is leaning to declaring
>only lt, gt, and amp automatically and making references to
>undeclared entities be a reportable error.
>C.4 if XML makes DTDs optional and allows partial DTDs, what must or
>may a parser do when it encounters references to undeclared entities
>(9.4)? Should XML declare any set of entities automatically?
All the ISO Latin-1 entities should be declared, as should any of the
entities curently in HTML (even ones we think are stupid, if there are any
People think this is a part of SGML anyway, and the names are well known.
Compatibility with the general public's expectations dictates this answer.
People _like_ namespace pollution when it meets their expectations
(otherwise why would people like PERL?). This is a case where the anti-CS
viewpoint should win out.
What does reportable error mean for netscape? I think that, at the least,
we should suggest non-bindingly that display applications treat undefined
entities as "broken text" -- similarly to the current broken image strategy
(which could also be viewed as a reportable error).
RE delenda est.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________