Parser compliance

Lars Marius Garshol larsga at
Wed Nov 24 09:03:13 GMT 1999

(Sorry for the lateness of this posting.  Due to problems with my
subscription it didn't arrive the first time I tried.)

* Sean Mc Grath
| Fully 1.0 Compliant - Non Validating
| -------------------------------------
| 2. XT

RXP (C, Python) probably belongs here.

| Fully XML 1.0 Compliant - Validating
| ------------------------------------

Java Project X (the Sun parser).

| Non XML 1.0 Compliant - Non-Validating
| --------------------------------------
| nsgmls (C++)
| xmlproc (Python)

xmllib (Python)
sgmlop (Python)
Ælfred (Java) (though David Brownell's version gets pretty close)
xml4j (Java) (now Xerces-Java)
XJParser (Java)
AdvXMLParser (C++)
Markup (Objective Caml)

| Non XML 1.0 Compliant - Validating
| ----------------------------------
| nsgmls (C++)
| xmlproc (Python)

xml4j (Java) (now Xerces-Java)
XJParser (Java)

Should we quantify how many of the tests in the OASIS suite a parser
may fail (excluding those on which the jury is still out)? Given that
there are 1065 tests, what should be considered acceptable?  1065?
1060? 1050?  1000?

Looking at the conformance review on requiring 1065 and 1060
would only accept the Sun parser, whereas 1050 and 1000 would accept
the Sun parser and XP.

--Lars M.

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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list