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

Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite

• To: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
• Subject: Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
• From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
• Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:50:30 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <003301c4b908$d1d7e340$0200a8c0@karlglen188>
• References: <417A2BE6.3050808@j...> <003301c4b908$d1d7e340$0200a8c0@karlglen188>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

> As far as I can tell, the XML spec does not state that a non-validating
> XML processor must not report VC violations. However, the moment it does 
> report some of them, it could be considered a faulty validating pocessor.

But the parser clearly identifies itself as non-validating.

> From a practical point of view, a non-validating processor that
> reports VC violations as errors would not be very useful, as you could
> not check for well-formedness of a document, unless you examine each
> reported error manually.

Sure you could-- the parser would report WF errors as Fatal Errors and 
stop processing, while it would report VC errors as Errors and continue 
processing.

Cheers,
Jeff

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• References:
  • Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
    • From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
  • Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
• Next by Date: Re: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: Afte r XQuery, are we done?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
• Next by thread: Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread