[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> 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
|
