[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > compliance would get raised--what if a document's internal subset contains > an entity decl that overrides an entity in one of the externally-defined > DTD's? Do we somehow recompute our grammar? Do we ignore it but still
I don't think recomputing the grammar is reasonable for grammars that are cached. And even if it were, I don't think this is what people want. If someone is using grammar caching, they are more likely wanting to lock down the grammar that is used to validate the document, not open it up to each document instance to decide how it should be validated. > send entity-declaration events down the pipeline, misleading the > application into thinking we're actually going to use these entities? Do This is certainly a good point but I think that this would be an acceptable shortcoming. In the grammar caching situation I would not care too much about what information from the internal subset was passed through. But I would want general entities declared in the internal subset to be used. -- Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
