• To: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
• Subject: Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:13:35 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <417A2BE6.3050808@j...> <003301c4b908$d1d7e340$0200a8c0@karlglen188> <417A6FB6.3080004@j...>

>> 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.

Yes, that is, if the parser  makes such a distinction.

Karl

• 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...>
  • Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
    • From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>

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