- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:57:57 +1100
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> At 1:24 AM +1100 1/14/03, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >I think Chris misses out another option: > >?) Refactor XML so that there are four kinds of XML processors: headlessWF, > WF, typed, and valid. Deprecate WF in favour of WF and typedWF in all W3C > specifications. > > - Headless WF must have no DOCTYPE. > And what happens if it does? How does a document indicate that it is > headless? Simply by not having a DOCTYPE? Or is this a parser option? > What happens if a headless parser encounters a DOCTYPE? This feels > very rough to me. If a headless parser finds a DOCTYPE it would fail. (Strictly, it would only need to check if standalone=yes and if there are no declarations in the internal subset which affect the infoset: set attribute values to ID* or adding default values, but that is too much work.) A document without a DOCTYPE declaration is headless. It would be a parser option or parser type, just as WF or Validating are currently parser options or types. Where is the roughness? Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:56:25 UTC