Re: C.4 Undeclared entities?
At 10:43 PM 10/28/96, Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:40:12 -0800, Tim Bray <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Charles' proposal boils down to:
>> A well-formed XML document must include a <!DOCTYPE
>> Some of Tim's prose deleted by Charles...
>>So, on balance, I would at the moment vote against requiring <!DOCTYPE
>>as a condition of well-formedness. Even if it were desirable, it would
>>be widely ignored, and I think that rules that aren't going to be
>>obeyed shouldn't be made.
>I am *not* proposing that there be an explicit "DTD" for merely "well-formed"
>XML. I am proposing, as Eliot has pointed out, that there is a legitimate 8879
>DOCTYPE declaration for the case where there is no explicit DTD, viz:
><!DOCTYPE DocumentTypeName SYSTEM>
>If XML uses this to introduce a well-formed DTD-less document, it will satisfy
>SGML conformance as well. Therefore, there is no reason to break SGML
>conformance for well-formed DTD-less XML documents.
Bil gave a great reason: This will not, in fact, be put in by users, thus
rendering the notion of well-formed XML documents irrelevant. Well-formed
XML documents should, therefore, _not_ be SGML compatible in this way, as
it will lead to a dearth of well-formed XML documents.
We should not try to impose any conditions on well-formed documents that
are not _REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR AN XML PROCESSOR TO PARSE IT_. The doctype
is not needed for XML processing, so it should not be in well-formed XML.
Valid XML arguably has a much greater claim on it for SGML compatibility,
even for things that could be done automatically; well-formed XML does not.
RE delenda est.
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
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 \__________________________