[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> If you define what a conformant XML processor *is*, I might agree with
> you. If I have a processor that understand the grammar of well-formed
> XML, but emits a boolean value (parsed or not), is that a conformant
> processor?
That's a very good question. In practice, I find it more useful to talk
about a conformant SAX processor, DOM processor, etc. I'd like to talk
about a conformant XPath engine or XSLT processor as well but those
working groups decided to shoot themselves in the feet when it came to
conformance testing.
I do wonder if the attribute order issue suggests a possible way out of
the conundrum though. Attribute order in XML is not significant, period.
This was required not by the original first edition XML spec but by the
SGML spec which XML 1.0, first edition, incorporates by reference.
Does this same SGML spec place any other requirements on SGML and by
extension XML processors? In particular does it mandate anything that an
SGML processor is expected to return to client applications? Do any of
the SGML gurus on the list happen to know that?
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
