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

Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results

• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:10:29 +0100 (BST)

>The only definition for the Sun canonical form that I have found is the one
>packaged with the conformance tests.  This is labelled "Draft 1" and does,
>as you state, indicate that the DTD should appear first.   The link to the
>online document is broken.  I wonder if all current implementations
>currently emit PIs in the order (relative to the DTD) that they appear (as
>ours does).

Mine doesn't output PIs from the DTD at all.

>Interesting.  We have followed the convention that other processors seem to
>have adopted of treating UTF8 as an alias for UTF-8.  Just like ASCII is
>treated as an alias for US-ASCII.  Do you think this is wrong?

I don't think it's wrong for you to accept "UTF8", but I think it's
wrong that the test uses it.  It's not required that a parser
recognize it, and one that doesn't will reject the document at that
point.  Tests designed to check detection of a particular error should
not include other things which are not guaranteed to work.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>
  • Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: independent standards - a matter of life and death?
• Next by Date: Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Next by thread: Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread