Re: Cougar DTD

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Tomasz Pilat wrote:

> I think I have found 2 next (little) bugs in Cougar DTD (29/IV/97).
> Am I right?

Yes you are. These are indeed the two small errors I was refering too in 
my previous mail.

> BTW: I'm looking for good DTD parsers for Linux (perl most welcome). Any
>  suggestions? I have some parsers, but they are weak - they didn't found
>  this and previous (NOSCRIPT) bugs.

What about nsgmls ? It's C++ and should compile on linux.

> BTW2: According to DTD nesting NOFRAMES/NOSCRIPT (from %block) is allowed.
>  Is this purposeful?

Clearly these two elements have been introduced separately and I'm not sure 
the combination of the two has ever been thought all the way through. I 
thought about it and all I can say is that I can't see why I would prohibit 

This said, Arnoud is right. DTD are not always sufficient and the related 
specification may be more restrictive than the DTD. Usually simply 
because DTDs are not powerful enough to express what you actually want.

Arnaud Le Hors - W3C, User Interface Domain -

Received on Saturday, 10 May 1997 13:57:59 UTC