W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > July to September 2005

Prod. [68], VC and WFC: Entity declared

From: Dieter Köhler <d.k@philo.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:11:25 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: xml-editor@w3.org

There seem to exist several inconsistancies with regard to Prod. [68] WFC: 
Entity Declared and the VC: Entity Declared.

1) Prod. [32] VC: Standalone Document Declaration implies that it is a VC 
if standalone="yes" and entity references (other than to amp, lt, qt, apos, 
quot) appear in the document which are defined in the external DTD subset, 
but prod. [68] WFC: Entity Declared implies that it is a WFC instead.

2) Prod. [68] VC: Entity Declared starts: "In a document with an external 
subset or external parameter entities ..." The term "external parameter 
entities" is ambiguous, because it can either refer to PE references or PE 
declarations.  Shouldn't it read: "... or references to external parameter 
entities ..."?

3) The second paragraph of the Prod. [68] WFC: Entity Declared says:

"Note that non-validating processors are not obligated to read and process 
entity declarations occuring in parameter entities or in the external 
subset; for such documents, the rule that an entity must be declared is a 
well-formedness constraint only if standalone='yes'.

Does this mean that if standalone="no", a missing declaration is always a 
VC or only if a non-validating processor is used?  If it is always a VC the 
start of the VC: Entity Declared can be changed to "In a document with 
"standalone='no'", the Name ...".  If it depends on the type of the 
processor used, for clearity the words "for such documents" should in my 
opinion be replaced by "when a non-validating processor is used on such 

Dieter Köhler

Institute of Philosophy and
Centre for Multimedia Studies
University of Karlsruhe
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2005 22:12:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:46 UTC