From: Jason S. <jas...@gm...> - 2006-06-30 14:39:10
|
Hey, On 6/30/06, Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) <Mic...@ro...> wrote: > Hi Jason and Valerie, > > > Beyond what Michael said, it is an *error* not to reference the > > DOCTYPE in a MAGE-ML file. > > I think the issue is that this is prefectly valid: > > <!DOCTYPE MAGE-ML SYSTEM "MAGE-ML.dtd"> > > But anyone who does this should still be admonished to change their > ways. True, it is valid. So I will extend what I said: using a MAGE-ML DOCTYPE with only a SYSTEM identifier and not a PUBLIC identifier should be considered an error... > > > Michael, isn't this a 100% backwards compatible idea that would make > > life easier for people? Is this change possible? I mean clearly the > > version that we distribute from the MGED site could be modified, but > > can the *official* version at the OMG be modified like this? > > It is definitely 100% backwards compatible, since it is just a comment. > Unfortunately, even a minor change like this takes a process at OMG. Yes, I see. I think it's worth it. > > In practice, I don't think this is has been a huge issue, it is rare > that I've seen a DOCTYPE where the dtd isn't qualified by the version > directory, and, although it is ugly and inelegant, in the > resolveEntity() method one can look for the elements that require one or > the other DTD and/or special case to look for who produced the document > and map to the correct DTD. Doesn't this miss the point? I thought the issue was that looking at the DTD files, you couldn't tell which one was 1.1 and which one was 1.0. Valerie suggested adding a comment to the DTD indicating the version number. Or did I misunderstand? Cheers, jas. |