• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: WFC "Entity Declared" vs. VC "Entity Declared" (for GEs, PEs)
• From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:35:29 -0800 (PST)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gvgPgzukQnN+3miQQKd2MwrVm5LB4d+LmY1vlVUgzPgNzCqmrLtE0Gk6yScL3VY5AYbGSQudNtaGvaw/pOLpUcXJJIGzwN28ytED6n9wIqYS7nqmpSGuoq5uc2YXJfMmBMIz6X1im2vJqrR57Ci9Rk+1xn3t3kDZP6nc5bdd8Ys= ;

I am trying to understand the exact distinction
regarding declaration of entities; specifically, under
which conditions are missing declarations of entities
validity, and under which well-formedness, violations.

Description of these constraints under 4.1 seem bit
unclear; especially regarding difference between
undeclared (or only externally declared) general and
parameter entity references.

Now, it does look like undeclared PEs can only result
in a VC (since [69] does not have WFC). Is this
correct? So that independent of value of 'standalone'
pseudo-attribute, it is only an error (not fatal
error) to encounter an undeclared PE?. Or are there
some cases where an undeclared PE would be considered
a WFC?

Or regarding GEs; are there cases where undeclared GE
would only be a VC? (perhaps if standalone = 'no', and
external subset contains a default attribute
declaration that refers to an [as-of-yet] undeclared
entity?)

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

• Prev by Date: Re: xml xsl web architecture
• Next by Date: Re: xml xsl web architecture
• Previous by thread: xml xsl web architecture
• Next by thread: XSD substitution groups, subtypes, nillable .. the whole smack
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread