- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:38:34 -0400
- To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-xml-testsuite@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Richard Tobin wrote: > > To me a plain well-formedness error clearly take precedence over a > > namespace error since document which doesn't conform to REC-xml-names can > > still be usable data, while a not well-formed one must break. > > I still think the error is miscategorized, and will supress it from > > my regression runs. And I really don't think XML parsers should report > > a namespace error there but the XML-1.0 wellformedness error which is > > far more critical and general. > > The test suite doesn't require any particular error message. To > pass the test all you have to do is reject the document. The fact > that you reject it because of the XML well-formedness error is > unimportant. I disgree again. <a:/> (or the example used in the test) is a well formed document. It has no way to indicate it expect (or not) to use namespace, a XML-1.0 parser must accept it. Now a NS-1.0 compliant parser must report the violation, but nowhere from section 7 or 8 is the parser instructed to *reject* the document. Hence it's my opinion important that XML parser do not reject document not namespace-well-formed , but as indicated they must report the error if they want to be NS-1.0 compliant. Assuming rejection for NS-1.0 compliance sounds wrong to me. This case of the test suite seems to assume this. Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Received on Friday, 8 August 2008 15:39:19 UTC