RE: XInclude under-implemented tests

I am planning to send a response more or less to the
effect described below.  If I get more info about
the tests (from either Elliotte or Daniel), I can
augment my email with that info at the PR telcon.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Tobin
> Sent: Wednesday, 2004 September 15 11:47
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XInclude under-implemented tests
> 
> 
> 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 17:15:08 UTC