[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@JetForm.com>, xml-dev@XML.ORG
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:05:18 -0500
If the tool has passed the acceptance
tests for the tool type (in accordance
with the spec), the tool approach is
fine. This is why some use
reference implementations. Unfortunately,
it is often very difficult to get a
consortium to enable or create such
implementations, their predeliction being
to create sample implementations to
enable development, not references
for compliance.
By making them rely on the spec to prove
compliance, you are forcing them into the
detailed legalese of the spec which may or
may not be a reasonable demand given the
local production schedules. A testing
tool is usually the best alternative which
is why it must also have a record of
authority. That means that professional
test personnel skilled at developing the
requirements for such tools are involved.
See NIST.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Rob McDougall [mailto:RMcDouga@JetForm.com]
Mightn't your better course of action be to point out the place in the XML
or Unicode spec where they are non-compliant. This is more definitive than
relying on one tool or another.
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
