Feeling good about SML

[Len Bullard]

Sean Mc Grath wrote:
> 
> Does anyone knowledgeable in the minutia
> of XML compliance care to list the extant
> parsers and put them into fully XML 1.0
> compliant and non-XML 1.0 compliant camps?
> 
> The next step would be to segregate the
> XML 1.0 compliant parsers along the
> lines of things they do that are
> "optional" per the spec. that cause
> interoperability problems.

I am sort of surprised this isn't already 
done.  One of the first things done for 
X3D and VRML was to get NIST involved in 
conformance testing.  It didn't fix the 
problem with non-conformant implementations 
but it was helpful in sorting them out.  
The problem has been by the time the 
conformance tests are done, the spec 
has moved on or there are new related 
specs.  But, this was where we were in 
SGML in about 1995-96 with regards to 
using the applications.   We had to write 
up tests for the US Navy and even these 
weren't enough because they were based 
on surface characteristics.   Conformance 
testing is necessary for XML; otherwise, 
the application languages don't have a 
chance of being truly portable.

len



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)