[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
> Mike.Champion@S... wrote: > I'm having trouble reconciling this assertion with David > Brownell's results (see > http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/05/10/conformance/conformance.html > ). When Dave put out that, I ran through the figures to put them into baskets and posted the results here on XML-DEV. No-one gave any view disputing my results, and I think they would only hold more now: that conformance is generally excellent. (Even more so, now that MS has improved.) The test suite does not attempt to eliminate double counting. So the percentage figures are meaningless as indicators of quality. What one has to do is put them into baskets of functionality, to group them and see where the problems occur. For example, the results showed that there was no real increase in errors between validating parsers and non-validating parsers: the extra features did not increase complexity to the point where it the features could not be sustained. What was very noticeable from the early and crappy way that many applications did not support xml:lang properly, was that developers did not test their products systematically against test suites: that is always going to be the nature of open-source code from independent developers who probably have a particular application in mind they want to solve. It would not be solved by reducing the spec: if you just have elements, data and comments someone would immediately try to get rid of comments. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|