[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Classpathx-xml] tests
From: |
Musachy Barroso |
Subject: |
Re: [Classpathx-xml] tests |
Date: |
Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:29:34 -0400 |
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 07:16:21 -0700, David Brownell <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 August 2004 20:15, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> > Some of this SAX tests are driving me crazy..like this one, on this input:
> >
> > <?xml version='1.0' standalone='yes'?>
> > <!DOCTYPE attributes SYSTEM "../valid/sa.dtd" [
> > <!--
> > attribute needs defaulting
>
> .... and since it needs defaulting, clearly "standalone = yes" is wrong
> and the document is invalid.
>
> > -->
> > ]>
> > <attributes/>
> > <?pi equals three?>
> >
>
> In this case, since it needed to default to <attributes token='a'/>,
> clearly omitting the DTD would change the output and so the
> document would no longer be standalone: parser output would
> NOT BE THE SAME when omitting the DTD's external subset.
>
>
> > the SAX test is expecting the parser to accept the xml file(!?), the
> > header of the test reads: " Tests the Standalone Document Declaration
> > VC, ensuring that attributes needing defaulting cause a validity
> > error."
>
> Accept it, sure. Accept it as valid, no ... it's invalid according to the
> original intent of the XML specification. Were you validating?
> Reading the external subset of that DTD?
yeah...accept it as valid I meant.
> The problem is that the "standalone" declaration was always very
> poorly defined ... and the behavior of attribute defaulting with respect
> to that declaration was _very badly_ defined.
>
> And to top it off, the first several errata to that part of the XML spec just
> added more ambiguity there. The W3C folk first tasked with resolving
> such things were dodging that issue pretty seriously, when they weren't
> ignoring it ... I remember it took over a year to get them to even respond
> to that one, at which point their alleged "response" was off topic.
>
> I got the impression that vendor politics were behind a lot of that
> early mess, though that over-a-year delay was maybe more because
> they didn't want to revise XML 1.0 that soon after releasing it. And the
> XML conformance test process sure acted for a while like it was being
> used as a vehicle to "bless Xerces" rather than actually resolve the
> spec bugs that turned up ... not just those for "standalone".
>
> - Dave
>
I just wrote to them 'cause there are actually 10 tests in this
condition (sun/invalid/not-sa...).
thanks
musachy
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?"
Pink Floyd