Re: Conformance + an apology

I am *not* arguing the general position that we should not improve
the spec's handling of conformance and data transmission.  Having
said that, at least two of Henry's questions are easy.

At 03:58 PM 5/27/97 BST, Henry S. Thompson wrote:

>1) If a dtd declares an attlist in required markup, and an element
>appears in the instance with an additional attribute, is the doc't well-
>formed?

Trivially yes.  The definition of well-formedness does not depend in any 
way on the presence, absence, or content of attlist declarations.  It
does require that if they are present they be syntactically correct.

>2) If an start tag appears for both an empty and a non-empty element, is
>the doc't well-formed?

Trivially yes, as long as the empty element also has an end tag.  Check 
the grammar.  XML *validity* requires that elements declared empty
use the sole-tag syntax (why?).  Uh, are you really asking whether
you can have both a start tag and empty tag for the same element
type?  Still yes.

>3) Are Names which are 'matched' folded up before they are delivered to
>an application, e.g. gis, attr names, and in particular, PI names?

It is explicit that case is not significant in [please let's use the 
right terminology] element types, attribute names, and PI targets.  There
is currently an acknowledged hole in the spec in that it doesn't say
enough about what gets passed to the app.  However, given the current
language about case-insensitivity, a processor that didn't fold
types, attr names, and pi targets would clearly be in violation of
the spirit of the spec. - Tim

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 11:20:56 UTC