- From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:12:56 -0400
- To: roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
At 12:28 PM 27/07/99 -0400, Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote: >On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Liam Quinn wrote: > >> At 09:22 PM 26/07/99 -0400, Liam Quinn wrote: >> That's probably good advice, but from further testing I've found that SP >> 1.3 will issue an error message for >> >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//foo//dtd foo 99.0//en"> >> >> but not for >> >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//FOO//DTD FOO 99.0//EN"> > >Right, because sp is just replacing the DOCTYPE with what is specified in >the cataloge. Wow, that's very unfortuneate. I'm a little unsure if this >is a feature of sp, or a bug in sp. Quoted (with permission) from James Clark: +It's not an error in SGML to have an unrecognized FPI. It's only an +error if you can't access the entity. + +Liam Quinn wrote: +> +> Hi, +> +> Given the following document, where the FPI is not in the catalog, +> +> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//FOO//DTD FOO 99.0//EN"> +> <title>Test</title> +> <h1>Test</h1> +> +> nsgmls 1.3 reports no errors if the catalog includes a DOCTYPE statement +> such as +> +> DOCTYPE html HTML4-loose.dtd +> +> This seems like a bug to me. I expect SP to issue an error for the +> unrecognized FPI. I've traced through the code but can't see a nice solution. +> +> -- +> Liam Quinn -- Liam Quinn
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 1999 09:12:26 UTC