Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
If the tool has passed the acceptance tests for the tool type (in accordance with the spec), the tool approach is fine. This is why some use reference implementations. Unfortunately, it is often very difficult to get a consortium to enable or create such implementations, their predeliction being to create sample implementations to enable development, not references for compliance. By making them rely on the spec to prove compliance, you are forcing them into the detailed legalese of the spec which may or may not be a reasonable demand given the local production schedules. A testing tool is usually the best alternative which is why it must also have a record of authority. That means that professional test personnel skilled at developing the requirements for such tools are involved. See NIST. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: Rob McDougall [mailto:RMcDouga@J...] Mightn't your better course of action be to point out the place in the XML or Unicode spec where they are non-compliant. This is more definitive than relying on one tool or another. *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
