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

Re: Wellformed?

• To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: Wellformed?
• From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
• Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 07:58:04 -0700
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <02a601c44214$0ddb9510$6403a8c0@ARIMATHEA> <003001c44217$0ea7de60$0300a8c0@karlglen188> <40B2E9C3.2070601@o...> <02ee01c44263$ecfb1550$6403a8c0@ARIMATHEA> <200405251442.PAA20017@p...>

> WF on reading but namespace conformance after inclusion, I think.
> Entities have to be WF "on their own" but the namespace rec doesn't have
> any constraints at the entity level.

So the parser has to check the entity literal multiple times? It initially
has to check that the literal is WF "on it's own" (with no namespace
implications-- i.e., bar:baz is legal because namespaces are never in effect
in the DTD)-- then the literal value must be checked for WFness in every
context it is included (with namespace processing in effect)?

This seems right... but it also seems very burdensome on the parser...

Thanks,
Jeff Rafter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Wellformed?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Wellformed?
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
  • Re: Wellformed?
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
  • Re: Wellformed?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: Wellformed?
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
  • Re: Wellformed?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Elliote Rusty Harold: W3C XForms The Next Big Thing?
• Next by Date: Poll: What is your XForms Player of choice?
• Previous by thread: Re: Wellformed?
• Next by thread: Re: Wellformed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread