[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Simple XML conformance

• From: Peter Murray-Rust <peter@u...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:47:31 +0000

At 12:15 AM 1/17/00 +0000, Edd Dumbill wrote:
>
>David Brownell's conformance testing using the NIST/OASIS test suite may
>be of some help here (see
><http://www.xml.com/pub/1999/09/conformance/index.html> and 
><http://www.xml.com/pub/1999/11/parser/index.html>) although several of
>the tools tested have had new releases since the time of testing.
>
>The output of his test runs show a comprehensive report, e.g. see
>http://www.xml.com/1999/09/conformance/reports/report-xp.html for the
>results for XP.

Yes indeed - I found this extremely useful. [I was also concerned at the 
relatively low conformance of some tools...] I always take XP as the gold
standard.
This is fine when the tools allow interchange of parsers (e.g. SAX-based) but
some are more hardwired.

>
>Also, see recent threads on this list concerning the recently published
>XML 1.0 errata and their bearing on the NIST/OASIS test suite.  (There
>is an XMLhack story with links to the relevant messages, see
><http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=216>)

>
>> Henry and I are obviously keen to show that XML is simple to use with the
>> correct tools and that interoperability is achievable. 
>
>It is perhaps a little unfortunate that you're having to put effort into
>showing this. However, it is my impression that most XML parser vendors
>are taking XML 1.0 compliance seriously.

I think they are. The question of exactly what a validating and non-validating
parsers should do has caused a great deal of discussion in the past and 
I am not clear whether it has been settled.

>
>It also sets off an interesting train of enquiry. Aside from David's
>conformance tests, how many other people have tried to prove parser
>interoperability in development or production situations, and with what
>results?

Yes. We provide a range of tools and documents which behave OK, but if someone
uses a tool we haven't used we don't want to have to tackle fuzzy questions
at an early
stage.

	P.

[Erratum: I meant <!ELEMENT greeting (#PCDATA)>]

>
>Edd
>
>-- 
>Edd Dumbill ----/ voice: +44 702-093-6870 fax: +44 870-164-0230 /----
> | Managing Editor, XML.com                          <http://xml.com>
> | Publishing Editor, XMLhack.com                <http://xmlhack.com>
> 

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• References:
  • Simple XML conformance
    • From: Peter Murray-Rust <peter@u...>
  • Re: The DOM: the realist and the implementer
    • From: Ray Whitmer <ray@x...>
  • RE: The DOM: the realist and the implementer
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: Simple XML conformance
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
• Next by Date: Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
• Previous by thread: Re: Simple XML conformance
• Next by thread: Re: Simple XML conformance
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread