[rfc-i] DTD defaults for v3

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Feb 15 12:31:25 PST 2014


On 2014-02-15 17:06, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> That's why DTD defaults are a bad thing; the infoset of the document varies depending on whether you use a validating parser or not.
>
> . . .
>
>>> Change the dtd so that the align attribute on artwork is implicit.
>>
>> That's a good change as well. We should do that consistently for all attributes.
>
> For the v3 document, I have been keeping the defaults from the v2 document, and even adding in some new ones. Would it be better to remove them? Or am I misunderstanding your comments above?

Defaults are bad when they are in a DTD, and the document is read by a 
validating XML parser (which seems to be the case for the v2 code).

If we move away from DTDs the "defaulting" doesn't affect the parsing 
anymore, and thus would be purely for documentation.

So we need to decide what our position with respect to DTDs is...

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list