- From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 09:06:04 CST
- To: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org
[this bounced for some reason, so I'm resending] In clause 2.3, the doctype decl is given as: '<!DOCTYPE' (Name | S)+ ('[' [^]]* ']')? '>' Unless I'm confused by the notation, that appears to allow Name to come after DOCTYPE with no intervening space. It also appears to allow any number of space-separated Names before the internal subset. (I think Chris Maden mentioned this too.) Finally, it appears not to allow any ] characters in the internal subset, but not only could they appear in attribute values, but the conditionalSect construct uses them. In fact, it uses ']]>' so any trivial grammar that stops at the first occurrence of ]> is going to screw up the internal subset. Also in the trivial grammar, the processing instruction is given as: '<?' [^?]* ('?' [^>]+)* '?>' That seems to say that, once you've seen the first ? in the content of the PI, you can no longer have any >'s in the PI. Is that correct? Would the latter be better: '<?' [^?]* ('?' [^>] [^?]*)* '?>' (Likewise in clause 2.5. Processing Instructions.) Also in clause 2.3, the spec suggests &sqot; and " for single and double quotes respectively "to allow attribute values to contain both single and double quotes." Whereas " is defined in ISO Numeric and Special Graphic characters, &sqot; is not in any of the defns with which I'm familiar. Nor can I find an entity among the ISO set for single, neither left nor right, not rising or whatever quote. Instead of inventing one, I'd suggest just not defining anything for a single quote. You only need to define one for double quote to allow attribute values (delimited by double quotes) to contain both single quotes and double quotes. Let's toss this &sqot; (or whatever, regardless of the name) and just mention ". I decided not to work on [24] the MsData definition at this time of night. In 2.9, is the value of the <?XML RMD=... PI supposed to be quoted or not? Though it may not have to be quoted grammar-wise, I think so many people will be used to quoting such things that we should at least allow it optionally to be quoted.
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 10:09:55 UTC