[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Seems unfortunate that vendors can just ignore normative portions of a
spec. I can understand differences in implementation where the spec is
complex, or unclear. But ignoring parts you don't like is simply goofy.
To reuse your phrase, I would have to call that "bad art" rather than
"state of the art" ;-/
Best --
Ian
Bob Foster wrote:
> Unique particle attribution is normative and not optional, but not all
> processors check it correctly and some processors check it optionally.
> Of course that leads to interoperability errors, and not just around
> UPA, but that's the state of the art.
>
> Bob Foster
> http://xmlbuddy.com/
>
> Ian Graham wrote:
> > I've been fiddling around with very simple schemas that violate the UPA
> > constraint -- and have found that some schema tools flag UPA errors
> > (e.g. oXygen), while others (e.g. XML spy) do not. This inconsistency
> > is, at best, confusing -- but at worst would seem to lead to
> > interoperability problems, since a designer could build a schema with
> > one toolset and find it is not acceptable to another.
> >
> > So am I missing something here? Is UPA really an inviolable constraint
> > [my interpretation], or is it just a guideline, in the manner of
> > Appendix E 'Deterministic Content Models (Non-Normative)' in the XML 1.0
> > specification? And if it's just a guideline, would this not lead to
> > interoperability problems as I've just outlined?
> >
> > And, if someone already went down this rat hole, can anyone refer me to
> > the corresponding xml-dev (or other) thread ;-)
> >
> > Best --
> >
> > Ian
>
>
--
Ian Graham
H: 416.769.2422 / W: 416.513.5656 / E: <ian . graham AT utoronto . ca>
|
