Re: Conformance + an apology

>At 08:49 AM 5/27/97 +0100, Digitome Ltd. wrote:
>>With regard to that posting can anyone confirm or deny that
>>a RAST/Grove/extended ESIS description of a parsed XML doc
>>is desrable for parser dev. / conformance testing?

[Tim Bray]
>Early on in the XML process, we explicitly decided *not* to 
>include an API in the XML spec.

Understood. I am not talking about an API in the sense of a
collection of functions/methods. I am talking about 
a standardised lexical format for XML parse trees so that two XML
parsers can dump that format from their internal parse trees in
order to check conformance.

[...]
>
>>NXP and Lark parse XML. Do they produce the same result? How is
>>this known?
[Tim Bray]
>We think they produce the same parse tree.
    ^^^^^
This sounds kinda informal for a formal defined standard.

[...]
>Opinion: ESIS is useless.  Full groves/properties are too difficult
>to fit into the spirit of XML.

I said "extended ESIS".

Opinion: 
>Fact: At the moment, the correct place to have these discussions is
>over in XML-DEV.

Is it not strange that something as fundamental as the correctness
of XML parse trees is not part of the base spec?

Regards,
Sean

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 10:51:46 UTC