Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
This one's tricky. Parameter entity references can only appear at the top-level in the internal subset. This is actually a well-formedness constraint so conformant XML processors would be required to report it as an error and not just silently pass it through as literal text. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#wfc-PEinInternalSubset I suspect that the test is wrong if it expects any output at all since it should have stopped processing before encountering the document element. Jason. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Lugt [mailto:roblugt@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:01 AM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: PEs in Default Attribute Values > > > Dear all, > > I would like clarification and consensus on how to treat PEs > within default > attribute values. > > The Oasis test suite contains a good example within the James Clark tests: > xmltest/valid/sa/094.xml. For convenience I will repeat the test files > here:- > > <!DOCTYPE doc [ > <!ENTITY % e "foo"> > <!ELEMENT doc (#PCDATA)> > <!ATTLIST doc a1 CDATA "%e;"> > ]> > <doc></doc> > > At first sight it appears that the "%e;" should be dealt with as a PE in a > similar way to an entity literal value. However, this is open to some > interpretation. The canonical output file from James Clark's test looks > like this: > > <doc a1="%e;"></doc> > > which clearly indicates that the %e; is not recognised as a PE at > all. One > justification for this way of thinking can be found in XML 1.0 Section 4.4 > which states that PEs referenced in Attribute Values are "not recognised". > But it could be argued they are not recognised simply because Attribute > Values only occur outside of DTDs. Section 3.3.2 (production [60] > DefaultDecl) only states that the processor should "behave as though the > attribute were present with the declared default value". It does not > mention "replacement text" which is the term used for entity values. > > When we wrote the ElCel parser we took James' test as an indication of the > way to go. But I see that the Oasis tests have now been amended to show > that this test was in error. > > Clearly there is some ambiguity here. Either they should be treated in a > similar way to literal entity values (where the PEs are expanded > into their > replacement text without the addition of 0x20 on either side), or they > should be "not recognised" as James Clark's example indicates. For parser > writers the latter is probably cleaner and more efficient, but what is the > consensus? > > Kind regards > Rob Lugt > http://www.elcel.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS > <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l... >
|
