Conformance section

In the final sweep to a release version, I would like us to resolve these 
questions in the conformance section:
1.

I propose deleting one of these rules, since I believe they are equivalent:

* All rule names that are serialised must match the requirements for an XML 
name.
* All nonterminal names which are marked to be serialised must match the 
requirements of an XML name.

2.

I propose deleting the second rule here, since I believe the first one 
covers it:

* For every nonterminal name occurring on the right-hand side of a rule, 
exactly one rule defining that name must exist in the grammar.
* The grammar must not contain more than one rule defining any given name.

3.

For the following rule, 

 A processor conforms to this specification if it accepts grammars in ixml 
form and uses those grammars to parse input and produce XML documents ...  
A conforming processor must not accept non-conforming grammars.

I propose the wording "A conforming processor must accept grammars in ixml 
form, and use them to parse input and produce XML documents ... "

An option would be "A conforming processor must accept grammars in ixml 
form, and should accept them in XML form, and use them ..." 
Do we have an opinion?

4.

I have a problem with the third requirement in this list:

For any conforming grammar and any input, processors must: 
* parse the input using the grammar specified, and produce an XML document 
representing a parse tree for the input, or
* establish that the input is not described by the grammar, and produce an 
XML document reporting that fact, or
* fail for whatever reason (e.g. because available resource limits were 
exceeded).

since it allows a processor that always fails to be conformant.

I'm in favour of dropping the third requirement.

Steven

Received on Friday, 3 December 2021 10:39:51 UTC