W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2003

NIST test 55

From: Peter McCracken <peterjm@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:23:09 -0400
To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF731EAD20.7A51AEEC-ON85256D59.006EB78D@torolab.ibm.com>

I have a question about NIST test 55.  The test consists of the two files:

Nist/test/docs/nist-include-55.xml:
<?xml  version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE x [
<!ELEMENT x (xinclude:include*, view*)>
<!ELEMENT xinclude:include EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST xinclude:include
      xmlns:xinclude CDATA #FIXED "http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
      href  CDATA #REQUIRED
      parse (xml|text) "xml"
      encoding CDATA #IMPLIED>
 <!ELEMENT view EMPTY>
 <!NOTATION jpg SYSTEM "jpg">
 <!ENTITY image SYSTEM "gris.jpg" NDATA jpg>
 <!ATTLIST view sun ENTITY #IMPLIED>
]>
<!-- Including a duplicate unparsed entity. Test should ignore duplicate
unparsed entity. -->
<x xmlns:xinclude="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude">
      <xinclude:include href="../ents/unparent.xml" parse="xml"/>
      <view sun="image"/>
</x>

Nist/test/ents/unparent.xml:
<?xml  version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE view [
 <!ELEMENT view EMPTY>
 <!NOTATION jpg SYSTEM "jpg">
 <!ENTITY image SYSTEM "gris.jpg" NDATA jpg>
 <!ATTLIST view sun ENTITY #IMPLIED>
]>
<view sun = "image"/>

This is supposed to be a successful test case -- the duplicate unparsed
entity should be ignored, since both entities have a system id of
"gris.jpg".  However, the spec says in 4.5.1: "Unparsed entity items with
the same [name], [system identifier], [public identifier], [declaration
base URI], [notation name], and [notation] are considered to be duplicate."
Wouldn't the two unparsed entities in this test case have different
[declaration base URI]s?

If my concept of [declaration base URI] is correct, the first unparsed
entity has a base of "Nist/test/docs/nist-include-55.xml" and the second
has a base of "Nist/test/ents/unparent.xml".  Should this make the two
unparsed entities non-duplicate, and thus make the test case a failure
case?

The same goes for the notations in that test, too.

Thanks,
Peter McCracken/Toronto/IBM
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 16:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:57 UTC