- From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:14:32 -0500
- To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 05:23 PM 10/29/96 CST, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: >It seems to me this means we need to know whether something is in >fact a partial DTD, or is (intended to be) a full DTD. (I am using >'DTD' here in the sense of 'explicit markup declarations', not in >the larger sense prescribed by 8879). Something intended to be a >full DTD is in theory suitable for validation; something intended >only to be a partial DTD (e.g. to provide declarations of external >entities) is not suitable as the basis for validation. On the other hand, we could get right down to business and describe an XML document as claiming to be in a ready-to-validate state or not. The full/partial business makes me uncomfortable because the ends are just degenerate cases of the middle, but stating that you think something is ready to be validated is a useful piece of information. >... >So, I think the answer to the original question is, Yes, there >should be an XML parameter entity to indicate whether the DTD >given is a full DTD (as for SGML) or a partial DTD not intended >to make the document valid (probably, in practice, intended only >to make it well-formed). (PI, not parment, right?) People who are making ad hoc document structures will not want to add a PI saying that the structures are ad hoc. It would make more sense to require documents that are "complete" to have a PI saying so, since saying so would buy more useful processing -- namely, validation by recipients. And since much document exchange (I'm guessing) won't be for the purpose of validation by recipients, the PI can be left off a lot of the time. Eve
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 1996 09:12:32 UTC