[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
Being a bit of a Bob incarnation (no association with a small town called Twin Peaks) i wonder whether my problem had any relevance to what Sean McGrath is saying about layering, albeit from a very different point of view. From Richard Tobins very illuminating post [1] i believe i gathered the following. Given: The recommendation had to chose between two unattractive choices, and avoided the (theoretically) worst one. "Most" parsers are "incompliant" with regards to a simple theoretically wellformed document (which is useless and bad practice) and thus also reintroduce(!?) the problem that the recommendation strives to avoid. Makes me believe: Removing internal subsets would help simplify the problem and would make it possible to make PE declarations mandatory, making parsers compliant in that respect... At a wild guess that change would be pretty much impossible. So how about just making PE declared a WFC and make the best practice a hard rule in the rec as well as in reference parsers? Then again, best practice (and common sense i suppose) already fix this so i guess it would really just be for simplified comprehension. Better (and vastly more initiated) minds than mine has apparantly been messing with this one, so if there are any other reasons for this "mismatch" or if i still haven't got it right, i would be interested in knowing. I am not quite convinced the items in the second edition errata regarding this are "best practice". Thanks for the help, Staffan Måhlén [1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200103/msg00626.html
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|