Re: RELAXED CHEKING feature [Re: conformance testing....]

Well perhaps this is a bit misleading... I am using the relaxed setting 
to allow HTML parsing... Perhaps we can simply make the distinction 
based on the class name for now---or use an additional r/o-flag, where 
the parser identifies itself in the way you described? If relaxed is 
set, I even try to accept SGML things like <table border=1> etc.


Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> Stefan Haustein wrote:
> 
> 
>>>so if http://xmlpull.org/v1/doc/features.html#relaxed is supported those 
>>>errors will be not fatal and just reported as violations?
>>>   
>>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
>>Yes, that would be great.
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> hi,
> 
> i was thinking about it and would like to add to description of this 
> feature it additional clarifications:
> 
> 
> "Even when this feature is enabled parser MUST accepts all valid XML 
> (the only exception is in case when PROCESS DOCDECL is disabled as in 
> this case DOCDECL is not parsed). This feature is intended to indicate 
> that the parser will make less effort to detect invalid XML documents. 
> This is good to produce small footprint XML parsers for J2ME such as kXML2".
> 
> i was also thinking that to indicate intent of this feature (all _valid_ 
> XML accepted but invalid may not be detected) we should change name to 
> "relaxed-checking"?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> alek
> 




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xmlpull-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/