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

Re: C.4 Undeclared entities?

From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:25:27 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: cbullard@HiWAAY.net, Charles@sgmlsource.com
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I've been just watching the tennis match on this issue, and my allegiance
switches with every mail message. :-)  Nonetheless, one small comment...

At 05:41 PM 10/28/96 -0600, Len Bullard wrote:
>Suppose the user doesn't include the DOCTYPE.  The system implementor 
>puts that on their list of exceptions to handle and either whacks the 
>users kneecaps with a "Foreswear bad XML" or says nothing and goes on 
>doing what they will do if it is there but no DTD is specified.  What 
>is the big deal?  OTH, tell them that the DOCTYPE is optional and they 
>will never do it.  It isn't the laziness of the author that is at issue.
>It is the laziness of the programmer and the conformance of the system.
>Even HTML application users are learning it's a good idea to put the 
>DOCTYPE in there.  The large numbers that don't says more about the 
>levels of practicioners out there and the systems they use, not the 
>validity of the practice.

Perhaps they're learning that it's a good idea to use the DOCTYPE
declaration because they're pointing to various *different* HTMLs.  A 
DOCTYPE declaration of <!DOCTYPE foo SYSTEM> tells you nothing other
than (repetitiously) the root element's name, whereas an FPI at least
points you to a specific intended DTD.

Received on Monday, 28 October 1996 19:23:55 UTC

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