> One other difference I'd like to point out is that, with the exception of the
> "escape character" entities (lt, gt, amp, quot, and apos), I don't think you can
> construct an XML file with parsed entities that you cannot construct without
> them.
Actually, they too can be "compiled out" by clever use of character
references: see the table in clause 4.6 of XML 1.0.
> This is not true of unparsed entities. Not only would an UnparsedEntity
> element rectify this problem, it would also solve the validation problem pointed
> out by John Cowan with respect to ENTITY attributes: we can't validate their
> value without unparsed entity declarations.
Okay, I'm convinced. (Note also that SAX supports them.)
How about:
<!ELEMENT UnparsedEntityDef>
<!ATTLIST UnparsedEntityDef
Name CDATA #REQUIRED
SystemLiteral CDATA #REQUIRED
PubidLiteral CDATA #IMPLIED
Notation CDATA #REQUIRED>
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)