On 2021-09-20 17:08:26 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > Then libxml2 can find the right file on the local file system via > > catalogs. In my case (which is the *default* setup with Debian > > I never understood this catalogue thing. When I tried it, it didn’t > work for me (that may admittedly have been multiple releases ago), > the documentation was as good as Chinese to me, and… meh.
The catalog system was very buggy in the past. I had reported many bugs in 2004. Things have much improved. The latest bugs I found were in 2012. > > Hmm... there seems to be a subtle difference in xhtml-special.ent: > > Interesting. > > I’m working with an XHTML 1.1 DTD, which has the entities inline > (not sure if that was my doing or if I got it like this) and it > too has: > > <!-- C0 Controls and Basic Latin --> > <!ENTITY quot """> <!-- quotation mark, U+0022 ISOnum --> > <!ENTITY amp "&#38;"> <!-- ampersand, U+0026 ISOnum --> > <!ENTITY lt "&#60;"> <!-- less-than sign, U+003C ISOnum --> > <!ENTITY gt ">"> <!-- greater-than sign, U+003E ISOnum --> > <!-- note: not specified in HTML 4 --> > <!ENTITY apos "'"> <!-- apostrophe = APL quote, U+0027 ISOnum --> For the 1.1 DTD, w3c-dtd-xhtml 1.1-5 had the *upstream* file xhtml-1.1/basic/xhtml-special.ent with the buggy entity definitions <!ENTITY quot """ ><!-- quotation mark = APL quote, U+0022 ISOnum --> <!ENTITY amp "&" ><!-- ampersand, U+0026 ISOnum --> <!ENTITY lt "<" ><!-- less-than sign, U+003C ISOnum --> <!ENTITY gt ">" ><!-- greater-than sign, U+003E ISOnum --> In w3c-sgml-lib, the xhtml-special.ent file no longer depends on the XHTML version, and it has correct definitions. > But if this upstream change affects DTDs that were once released, maybe > it should accept, but ignore, this specific wrong redeclaration. Perhaps. This should probably be first talked with upstream. > Though you said the bug was introduced in a Debian package only… > where did the package get the wrong .ent files from? See my other message: I suppose that Debian took the XHTML 1.1 version (which was buggy) to use it with both XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1 DTDs. This is my only plausible explanation. > If this is truly Debian-local, I agree nothing than the conflict is > probably needed. The XHTML 1.0 DTD issue seems Debian-local. But the XHTML 1.1 DTD issue (which I have not tried) is an upstream one, according to the w3c-dtd-xhtml_1.1.orig.tar.gz file, which is the upstream part I got from https://snapshot.debian.org/package/w3c-dtd-xhtml/1.1-5/ . -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)