Microsoft's responce to XML.com article

[James Clark]

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to see another round of comment on the comments, however.  It
> > seems like there are enough people around with a deep understanding of the
> > conformance tests (i.e., the people who built them) to report on the four
> > 'hotly contested differences' listed.
> 
> I don't know about "hotly".  The first two objections have meat
> to them, the second two don't (IMHO):
> 
> * Is <![CDATA[ ]> the same as ignorable whitespace? We say no.
> 
> In this area, as in some others, the XML specification errata need to
> get updated.  This is test that I called attention to in the review.
> (It came from some XML-Dev discussions, where Microsoft was silent.)
> 
> In the absence of W3C errata ruling out this handling, I can't see a
> compelling reason for the NIST/OASIS suite to change.  (Tim, I'm sorry
> to say that your posted opinion doesn't count as much with me as W3C
> errata would ... particularly since I can trace paths through the XML
> spec justifying the contrary opinion!  ;-)

Microsoft is right on this one.  See

 http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata#E28

I have to say I think it's inappropriate for the NIST/OASIS test suite
to include controversial cases, where there are legitimate differences
of opinion on the correct interpretation of the spec that are not
resolved by the errata.

James


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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.