W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Wording of ASOM

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:36:21 -0800
To: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, www-dom@w3.org
Message-id: <02cc01c1a03e$43cfe880$6800000a@brownell.org>
> > > ... XML did not officially define a processor type/mode in which no
> > > attempt is made to use the external subset.
> >
> > Eh?  I sure think it did.  The external subset is an unnamed entity,
> > so it falls under the options for a non-validating parser.  That was
> > the clear intent.
> They said that this was legitimate behavior for a nonvalidating processor.
> As far as I can tell, they didn't provide any terminology for
> distinguishing this case from that where the attempt is made, and that lack
> of terminology has been an ongoing problem for XML users.

The parse would be non-validating, whether an attempt
was made or not.  The problem was ... what?

> Especially if we decide to actually make it directly requestable through
> the API... which I think might be a good idea; the parser itself is much
> better equipped to know which external entity requests are intended for use
> as External Subsets than the EntityResolver is.

The "org.xml.sax.ext.EntityResolver2" interface (see the SAX website,
http://www.saxproject.org, for such draft "extensions 1.1" APIs) makes
that information available to the resolver.  Not that it can cause PEs
to be "skipped"; it can only resolve them to empty content, which is a
much simpler thing.

Having thought about this a bit, I can still say that I think it's a lot more
usable to just have controls that affect all external entitiees of a given
type:  PE or GE.  Attempting more granular control, particularly of PEs,
creates needless confusion and potential for error.

- Dave
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 11:37:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:09 UTC