[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: entity definitions

• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: entity definitions
• From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:32:58 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200404262210.XAA17224@p...>
• Organization: The Mysthical World of Talsever!
• References: <200404260945.KAA11264@p...><20040426184324.GA2389@t...><200404262210.XAA17224@p...>

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:10:56 +0100
David Carlisle <davidc@n...> wrote:
> > This proposal is intended to modify XML 1.0 by changing parts of
> > section 4.1, specifically creating an alternative mechanism to fulfill
> > the Entity Declared WF/V Constraint.
> 
> As with schema languages, there are benefits in not forcing any
> particular declaration language, but there would be great benefit
> in allowing undefined entities to be(only) a validity error.
> to allow such layering of new declaration syntaxes, but this was
> explictly rejected for 1.1 and I don't see a 2.0 coming any time soon.

*shrug*  The Namespaces recommendation provides an example of an alternate
path.  It depends, in part, upon interpretation of the Entity Declared WFC
and VC paragraphs of section 4.1.  See below.

> > The first clause of the same paragraph, "In a document without any
> > DTD" is problematic, potentially.  *shrug*
> 
> It's a real problem, not a potential one.
> <!DOCTYPE x SYSTEM "x-wibble:wobble">
> <x>&foo;</x>
> is well formed but not valid
> <x>&foo;</x>
> is not well formed.

But depending upon how you read these two paragraphs, the following
possibly is well-formed (and possibly valid, if the entity is declared in
a different schema language):

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no" ?>
<x>&foo;</x>

This is particularly true if the problematic phrase "without any DTD" is
read more generally as "without any schema", but is potentially
justifiable from clause three of the same sentence and the first clause of
the first sentence of the VC constraint.

> > Bob Foster also suggested, in email, that it might be possible to use
> > XSLT to perform a transformation (pick up the entity and entities PIs,
> > and stick them in the external subset).  I may need to ask on
> > xsl-list,
> 
> It's not possible as the XPath data model has no undefined entities, so
> even though the first example above is potentially well formed, 
> it will be treated like the second and generate a fatal error on input.

*sigh*  That's what I thought, thanks.  Oh, well.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
I have spent nights with matches and knives, leaning over ledges, only 
two flights up.  Cutting my heart, burning my soul.  Nothing left to
hold.  Nothing left, but blood and fire.
                -- Indigo Girls

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: entity definitions
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Re: entity definitions
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: entity definitions
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: entity definitions
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: entity definitions
• Next by Date: Re: entity definitions
• Previous by thread: Re: entity definitions
• Next by thread: Re: entity definitions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread