W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2009

[Bug 7695] Conformance

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:22:00 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MvfpY-0006sd-3f@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7695





--- Comment #3 from Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>  2009-10-07 23:21:59 ---
Yes.  The fact that someone as well informed as you would not immediately find
his way from section 2.4 PSVI references to Appendix C suggests that at least
some clarification is needed.  Indeed, I had assumed you were well aware of
Appendix C and did not find it helpful in addressing your concern.

FWIW, I think where we stand is:

* Appendix C makes clear that conforming processors need not expose the whole
PSVI

* Appendix C provides a >vocabulary< to be used when documenting particular
levels of conformance, but it does not in any other sense define conformance
for processors as a whole

* I infer that you would be happier if we documented a named conformance level
for processors (call it instance validating for now) that required processing
of sets of schema documents, performed validation on on input infoset, and
provided as output the Root-Validity subset of the PSVI.

Do I have that right?  I would like to hear from editors like MSM whether there
are problems doing that, and if not, how they would propose to do that, but I
have some sympathy with the suggestion.  

Also, since some of the other PSVI levels like Type-Aware Subset are defined as
supersets of the Root-Validity Subset, then I presume that any processor that
supported (e.g.) Type-Aware, and met the non-PSVI requirements, would also be a
conforming "instance validator".  

So, if Saxon reported just Root-Validity, and Xerces reported Type-Aware, both
might be conforming "instance validators".  Do I have that right?

Thanks.

Noah


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 23:22:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:17 GMT