Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> In the conformance test suite published by the W3C, there is a document > that explains each test and the expected message/behavior of a > conformant parser [1]. The section "Invalid" reads: > > > All conforming XML 1.0 Validating Processors are required to report > > recoverable errors in the case of documents which are Invalid. Such > > errors are violations of some validity constraint (VC). > > > > If a validating processor does not report an error when given one of > > these test cases, or if the error reported is a fatal error, it is not > > conformant. If the error reported does not correspond to the problem > > listed in this test description, that could also be a conformance > > problem; it might instead be a faulty diagnostic. > > > > All conforming XML 1.0 Nonvalidating Processors should accept these > > documents, reporting no errors. > > Is this accurate? I thought any parser-- including a non-validating > parser-- could report violations of Validity Constraints insomuch as > they can recognize them [2]. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlconf-20031210.html#invalid > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#proc-types > 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. 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. Karl
|
