Re: XInclude under-implemented tests

• From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
• Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:46:33 +0100 (BST)
• To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20040915164633.C255D164150@macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Here's what I think we should say about the under-implemented tests.

On the one hand, there are optional features.  For some of these we
only expected one implementation, so if we have one that should be
enough, and if we don't we can remove them.

On the other hand, there are cases where spec says what should happen
in certain circumstances that may not occur, such as when the
processor encounters unexpanded entities.  These circumstances are not
"optional features".  We have to specify them for completeness.  The
fact that these circumstances do not occur in the tested
implementations does not mean there is anything wrong.

-- Richard

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2004 16:46:35 UTC