W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Notes on validome test suite / validators comparison

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:55:12 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <ffi6ol$abr$1@ger.gmane.org>

Validome-Staff wrote:
 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI
> "such rules and restrictions are not part of type validity
> and are not checked by ˇminimally conformingˇ processors.
> Thus in practice the above definition imposes only very 
> modest obligations on ˇminimally conformingˇ processors. "

The 2nd edition 2004 still has the same text talking about
RFC 2396 as amended by 2732 instead of RFC 3986 (STD 66) -
okay, just checked it, STD 66 was published in January 2005.

> As you know, there is no so simple as you claim to provide
> a reliable URI check.

The regexp in STD 66 is a one-liner, and determining the set
of visible ASCII characters allowed in an URI is "possible".
(Actually it's trivial, but it took me almost year to figure
 it out with the help Roy and others on the W3C URI list. ;-)

> as we know - there is no validaor at the moment, which
> handles it much better.

Indeed, I just asked WDG and schneegans.de what they think,
they also said "valid".

 Frank
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 12:58:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:26 GMT