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

Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:04:19 -0700

> > I always took that "unless" clause to apply to relative URIs showing
> > up somewhere in document content, not in the DTD; all those examples
> > were of that type, and the rest of that sentence (and paragraph, and
> > section!) clearly applies to URIs as declared within the DTD, not to
> > any of the cases in that clause's examples.
> 
> I took it to apply to both.  It would be peculiar to embed the
> statement in a paragraph about system identifiers if it didn't apply
> to them.

That clause was indeed rather peculiar.  At best it was an incomplete
thought; the spec has no business leaving the door open to retrospective
re-interpretation of data that's already been parsed/interpreted.


> I assume by "those examples" you mean "a special XML element type
> defined by a particular DTD, or ...

That in particular was bizarre, yes.  <xhtml:base> (or xml:base attributes)
would be in the body of the document, so why the heck would they even
need to be mentioned in a section talking about the DTD?  The same is
true for _any_ application level semantics (such as PIs).

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• References:
  • Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Next by Date: Re: SAX 2.0 Enhancement proposal (2nd Ed)
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Next by thread: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread