W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: C.4 Undeclared entities?

From: Charles F. Goldfarb <Charles@SGMLsource.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:43:49 GMT
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <327a315f.3571611@mail.alink.net>
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:40:12 -0800, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Charles' proposal boils down to:
> A well-formed XML document must include a <!DOCTYPE

>So, on balance, I would at the moment vote against requiring <!DOCTYPE
>as a condition of well-formedness.  Even if it were desirable, it would
>be widely ignored, and I think that rules that aren't going to be
>obeyed shouldn't be made.

I don't think I was as clear as I should have been. We seem to agree that only
"valid" XML and "well-formed" XML are of interest. (Documents that are neither
are broken.) We also agree that "valid" XML is just like valid SGML, with the
same kind of DOCTYPE declaration.

I am *not* proposing that there be an explicit "DTD" for merely "well-formed"
XML. I am proposing, as Eliot has pointed out, that there is a legitimate 8879
DOCTYPE declaration for the case where there is no explicit DTD, viz:

<!DOCTYPE DocumentTypeName SYSTEM>

If XML uses this to introduce a well-formed DTD-less document, it will satisfy
SGML conformance as well. Therefore, there is no reason to break SGML
conformance for well-formed DTD-less XML documents.
Charles F. Goldfarb * Information Management Consulting * +1(408)867-5553
           13075 Paramount Drive * Saratoga CA 95070 * USA
  International Standards Editor * ISO 8879 SGML * ISO/IEC 10744 HyTime
 Prentice-Hall Series Editor * CFG Series on Open Information Management
Received on Monday, 28 October 1996 17:56:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC