[rfc-i] DTD defaults for v3

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Feb 15 15:09:31 PST 2014


On Feb 15, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> 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...

Yes, that's what this thread is about. :-) I suspect you have an opinion. (I don't.)

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list