Re: doctype placement

From: Liam Quinn (liam@htmlhelp.com)
Date: Wed, Jul 28 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990728091256.00c5ec10@mail.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:12:56 -0400
To: roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Subject: Re: doctype placement 

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