Jeff Greif wrote:
> 
> I'm hesitant to enter this thread since I'm far from an expert, but...
> 
> The problem is that the browser is really a processing application, for
> example, using XSL to transform or render the document (at least in
> principle).  If the document is supposed to conform to a DTD, the XSL code
> will be a lot simpler if it can assume it will find what it wants where it
> expects it.  

I agree totally. But that's not what Chris said. He said that without the
DTD there "is no parse tree." That isn't true on a technical level.

I would be the last person to argue against the *value* of a DTD and the
value of validating against the DTD before displaying a document. I did
point out in my last message that a bug in the XML spec. makes the IE 5.0
behavior fairly defensible. Just because a DTD is there does not mean that
it is meant to be complete. If it is not meant to be complete then
reporting that is not very useful to anyone.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Other Operating Environments Will Have Trouble Keeping up with Linux's
Growth"
 - http://www.idc.com/Data/Software/content/SW033199PR.htm
   International Data Corporation bulletin


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list