Re: Undocumented test cases

> Karl wrote:
>  >Question: xmltest/not-wf/not-sa/010.xml and xmltest/not-wf/not-sa/011.xml 
> seem to check "Validity Constraint: Proper Declaration/PE Nesting" (P29). 
> So, why are they >found in the directory for test cases that check 
> violation of *wellformedness* constraints?
> 
> These test were reclassified from invalid to not well-formed during the WG 
> review prior to publication. The tests are considered invalid.  However, a 
> conformant processor would indicate that they fail "WFC: PE Between 
> Declarations" before they reach the end of the declarations that fail "VC: 
> Proper Declaration/PE Nesting".
> 
> Given the following production:
> 
>   [31] extSubsetDecl ::= ( markupdecl | conditionalSect | DeclSep)*
> 
> The replacement text of these entities clearly does not match this 
> production, failing the WFC check. The moment that the end of the 
> replacement text of each of these PEs is reached it clearly is the case 
> that the replacement text is not well-formed per the WFC. A fatal error 
> must be reported at this point.

You are right.
 
> Karl wrote:
>  >An analog question also applies to xmltest/not-wf/not-sa/005.xml, where 
> the >docs actually state explicitly that it checks for violation of 
> validity constraint "Entity Declared >VC".
> 
> This test was also addressed during the review and it was determined that 
> it should be classified as type "error", see 
> (http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/02/xml10-test-suite-issues ) issue TS11 
> for more detail on the issue  and a list additional tests that fall into 
> the same category . 

I cannot access this link - it requires a member login.

> These tests contain references to entities that have 
> not been declared, a validity constraint failure, that are also not 
> recoverable because the references occur in attribute values. 

Without having read your link above, I would say that a non-validating
processor should not report VC violations as errors.
I am not sure what you mean with "unrecoverable entity reference
in attribute value", but there is no such reference in
xmltest/not-wf/not-sa/005.xml, and this test case does not violate
WFC: Entity Declared. So, for a non-validating processor,
how could it report an error there?

> For a test 
> harness to distinguish this case, there needs to be such an indication in 
> the test description.  This mechanism will be added in a future revision of 
> the TS,  for now it was determined to set the type of
> these tests to "error" so that inappropriate conformance failures are not 
> reported.

Could you make the link above public?

Thanks,

Karl

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 12:08:29 UTC