If someone volenteers to update our ancient DTD written by Sam TH that would be great!
However for developmental purposes I don't think we should feel constrained to stick to it. Cheers Martin On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 16:03, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote: > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > > > This is an IE bug, if you're talking about Microsoft's > > > bugzilla, go ahead :) > > No, it's not. I have test three different XML parsers and all > > report the same error. I have also studied the DTD, and *has* > > incorrect syntax. You don't have to believe me; I encourage you to > > check with the official XML specification yourself. Here's the > > relevant section <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#elemdecls >: > > That's where I've looked at. > > > > > [45] elementdecl ::= '<!ELEMENT' S Name S contentspec S? '>' [VC: Unique >Element Type Declaration] > > [46] contentspec ::= 'EMPTY' | 'ANY' | Mixed | children > > > > And here's the relevant section from the 'DTD': > > <!ELEMENT iw CDATA> > > As you can see, 'contentspec' must be 'EMTPY', 'ANY', Mixed or > > children. And no, Mixed doesn't include 'CDATA'. A correct element > > type declaration could be: > > <!ELEMENT iw (#PCDATA)> > or (CDATA) ? > > I have to confess I didn't notice the parenthesis were mandatory. So ok, > this is bug. > > > But this doesn't fix the numerous other syntax errors in the DTD, > > nor that the DTD doesn't define some of the elements used in > > current AbiWord documents. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This is way more serious! However, since we're changing the document > format for the next version, it's very important to correct this in > future versions, and less important to correct it for the current dtd. > > Hugs, rms > > -- > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi > + So let's do it...? >
