[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 10:57:13 +0100 (BST)

>xmltest/valid/not-sa/022.xml Test Failed: 022.ent [3:41] : Error:
>conditional DTD section must start and end within the same entity

This VC was added by eratum 90 to the first edition; the test should
be updated.

>Canonical output mismatch between sun/valid/not-sa02.xml and
>sun/valid/out/not-sa02.xml

and 

>Canonical output mismatch between sun/valid/sa02.xml and
>sun/valid/out/sa02.xml

There has been some confusion about the validity of tokens separated
by character references to whitespace (which depends on the
definitions of Names and Nmtokens).  They were outlawed by first
edition erratum 62, which was reversed by erratum 108 (apparently
because of a misunderstanding) and have been outlawed again by second
editions erratum 20.  The end result is that there examples are not
valid and should therefore not have any canonical output!

>sun/valid/optional.xml Test Failed: optional.xml [25:26] : Error:
>non-deterministic content model for element 'once-or-more-1a': more than one
>path leads to element 'e'

All the tests that use sun/valid/dtdtest.dtd are broken because of the
non-deterministic content models.

>ibm/valid/P02/ibm02v01.xml Test Failed: ibm02v01.xml [14:49] : Fatal error:
>Invalid UTF-8 sequence: 0xF090805F

Yes.

>ibm/valid/P58/ibm58v01.xml Test Failed: ibm58v01.xml [16:48] : Error:
>duplicate token value 'that' for attribute 'attr'

As you say, second edition erratum 2.

Here are some more problems:

CR characters incorrectly inserted in:
 xmltest/valid/sa/out/098.xml
 sun/valid/out/{not-sa0[1234].xml,notation01.xml,sa0[2345].xml}

(actually there are CRs in all the files, probably because the test
suite passed through MS Windows; these are the ones where it makes a
difference).

ibm-invalid-P29-ibm29i01.xml
ibm-valid-P28-ibm28v02.xml
ibm-valid-P29-ibm29v0[12].xml
output file has PI before the DTD (wrong per the Sun canonical form
definition)

valid-sa-094
well-formed because PEs are not expanded in attvalue

ibm-not-wf-P77-ibm77n01.xml
doesn't test what it's meant to because there is a missing semicolon
after the entity reference

ibm-not-wf-P77-ibm77n03.xml
ibm-not-wf-P77-ibm77n04.xml
don't test what they're meant to because the encoding is "UTF8" instead of
"UTF-8".

ibm-not-wf-P68-ibm68n06.xml
does not test what it is meant to, because the text declaration in the
DTD (ibm68n06.dtd) does not contain an encoding declaration.
invalid/P51/ibm51i03.dtd has the same problem but that file does not
seem to be used.
not-wf/P75/empty.dtd has the same problem but all the files that refer
to it are not well-formed anyway.

ibm-not-wf-P69-ibm69n0[67].xml
do not test what they are meant to, because PEs cannot be used except
at the top level in the internal subset.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: Gary Stephenson <stephensong@i...>

• References:
  • 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: XML Schema: is it possible to get a list of ALL the errors in an XML?
• Previous by thread: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Next by thread: Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread