Re: XSL FO DTD problems

Ed,

It means that you must use an SGML parser if you want to validate an XSL FO
document, until such time as an XML DTD or schema is published for it. A user
might want to validate an FO document before passing it to an FO processor to
make sure that everything is correct, or a programmer creating an FO
processor might want to validate the incoming document to make sure it
conforms to the spec and generate errors for instances that don't, etc.

In any event, I think the XSL spec should mention that the current FO DTD is
an SGML DTD, and not an XML DTD, just for the sake of clarity. Most people
viewing the spec would probably make the same assumption that I did, i.e.
that an XML related standard would be expressed in XML syntax.

Rick Geimer
National Semiconductor
rick.geimer@xxxxxxx

Ed Nixon wrote:

> What is the significance of the fact that the XSL DTD cannot be expressed
> in... XML (syntax, semantics, whatever...)?
>
>         ...edN
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Grosso
> > Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 5:06 PM
> > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: XSL FO DTD problems
> >
> >
> > At 13:49 1999 06 25 -0700, Rick Geimer wrote:
> > >Is it my imagination, or is the DTD for XSL formatting
> > objects (from the
> > >following URL) an invalid XML DTD?
> > >
> > >    http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl/#AEN7695
> > >
> > >I tried parsing it with the XML parser in IE5, and IBM's
> > XML4C parser,
> > >and neither one accepted. However, it seems to be a valid SGML DTD.
> >
> > You are right that it is an SGML DTD, not an XML DTD.  At this stage
> > (given that we don't yet have XML schemas and SGML DTD's are more
> > powerful that XML DTDs), this seemed to be the best way to express
> > what we needed to express.  This DTD is *not* meant to be used in
> > any specific way (e.g., in an implementation), it was merely the most
> > convenient expositional tool the editors had at their
> > immediate disposal.
> >
> > >Does anyone know if there is a valid XML version of this DTD, or if
> > >there are plans to updated it for XML compliance?
> >
> > It appears to me there are four logical choices:
> >
> > 1.  leave it as an SGML DTD,
> > 2.  convert it to an XML DTD and lose useful information,
> > 3.  use something other than an XML or SGML DTD,
> > 4.  just delete the whole thing from the spec.
> >
> > I don't know what the editors will decide to do.
> > (My preference is option 1, but I'm only one voice.)
> >
> > paul
> >
> >
> >  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> >
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


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