The bulk of the XML processors tested were non-validating ones. For
Non validating parser where enforcing the rules in a document type declaration is not necessary, a wide variety of choices and design tradeoffs is available.
The Open Source parsers are invariably non-validating. This table provides
Non validating dom parser alphabetical quick reference to the results of the analysis for non-validating processors:. If you want to trade off some correctness to get a very small parser, look at this one. Two notable
Non validating dom parser are the root cause of most of the errors detected in this processor. This new entry on the processor scene is quite promising, despite rough edges where it should learn from its validating sibling.
More detailed discussion of each processor is below, in alphabetical order, with links to the Non validating dom parser testing reports. This processor
Non validating dom parser uniquely light weight; at about 33 KBytes of JAR file size compressed, and including the SAX interfacesit Non validating dom parser designed for downloading in Non validating dom parser and explicitly traded off conformance for size.
While it has not been updated in some time, it is still widely used. This processor rejects a certain number of documents it shouldn't, and
Non validating dom parser clear about why it did Non validating dom parser. Good diagnostics would have cost space, which this processor chose not to spend that way. There seems to be a pattern where the processor expects a quoted string of some kind, and is surprised by what it found instead.
There are cases where it's clear why those documents were rejected. For example, syntax that looks like a Non validating dom parser entity reference but is found inside of a comment should be ignored, but isn't. The XML spec itself uses such constructs in its DTD, but its errata haven't yet been updated to address the issue of exactly where parameter entities get expanded and where they don't. Were there not the example of the Non validating dom parser spec itself, and feedback from the XML editors on this issue, it would seem that this processor was in compliance.
Character references that would expand to Unicode surrogate pairs are inappropriately rejected. Nobody has any real reason to use such pairs yet, so in practice this isn't a problem. And the data provided as output is also not correct in all cases.
The bulk of this processor's nonconformance in the fact that it consciously avoids checking for certain errors, to reduce size and to some extent to increase speed. For example, characters are rarely checked for being in the right ranges, saving code Non validating dom parser several locations both to make those checks and to report the associated errors.
In short, most of the time if you feed this processor a legal XML document it will parse it without Non validating dom parser many resources. But if you feed it illegal XML, it won't be good about telling you that anything was wrong; or exactly what was wrong. This parser is part of a package developed with the assistance of Microsoft, providing a Java implementation of much of the XML manipulation functionality in Internet Explorer While it is freely available, such as bug fixes costs.
This SAX parser is not currently usable. It rejected almost all documents, due to a simple bug that no other parser has needed to stumble over. These rejections include all of the direct failures, as well as the huge number of "false passes" on the negative tests Few other parsers had that many failures at all; none had as many "false passes". The exception is a TokenizerException like the following:. Many of the documents which this processor accepted were documents which contained illegal XML characters, and so they should have caused fatal errors to be reported.
Speaking as a systems developer, it's hard for me to believe that this package was released without knowing about these bugs, and is harder to understand why it wasn't fixed in the months since it was first released. In any case, they were definitively informed about this bug in the first week of August, and it remains unfixed at this writing.
IBM's package includes several processor configurations, including validating and DOM-oriented parsers, and it works well with other XML software provided by Non validating dom parser company.
It gets regular updates. As "alphaworks" software, it has no guarantees.
Commercial usage permission can be granted. What sticks out the most about this processor is that just two clear cases of internal errors seem to dominate the test failures, making it reject many well formed documents which it should have Non validating dom parser. These also mask other errors that the processor should have reported.
The same symptoms exists in the validating processor, which shares the same core engine.
Thankfully, those internal errors don't show up Non validating dom parser enough to keep this processor from correctly handling the bulk of the test suite. If they were fixed, this processor might do quite well on a conformance evaluation, rather than being below the median. Beyond those two bugs, a few other problems also turned up.
This processor seems Non validating dom parser have some problems reading UTF text. In some cases it rejects XML characters that it should accept. That's significant since the result was rejecting many of the XML documents which used non-English characters. What were those bugs? Well over half of the falsely rejected documents and significant numbers of the incorrectly rejected ones are cases where the processor. These were reported to IBM when this processor was first released, and it is not clear whether any of subsequent releases have reduced the frequency of these errors.
Lark is one of the older XML processors still Non validating dom parser use. It was written by Tim Bray, one of the editors of the XML specification, in conjunction with that specification, partly to establish that the specification was in fact implementable.
It it is not actively being maintained. This processor rejects a few too many documents which it should accept, and doesn't produce the correct output in a number of cases. However, it is quite good at rejecting malformed documents for the correct reasons. Quite a lot of the documents that this rejects have XML declarations which aren't quite what the processor expects, in some cases seemingly due to having standalone declarations.
Others use some name characters which aren't accepted. There appear to a declaration ordering constraint imposed by the processor, and difficulties handling conditional sections. Character references that expand to surrogate pairs are not accepted.
Oracle has a new version of their package, which appears promising. At this time, this implementation is not licensed for commercial use. This processor was quite good about not rejecting documents it should have accepted, but needs some work yet on reporting the correct data and on Non validating dom parser some illegal documents.
Its diagnostics made the task of analyzing its test results easy; I was able to analyse the negative test results much more thoroughly than for most other processors. That will in turn life easier for the users of applications built Non validating dom parser this processor. With respect to the output from this processor, there were a handful of cases where incorrect data was reported.
From analyzing a subset of these cases, I noticed:. There appear to be some problems with character set handling. Unicode surrogate pairs are not handled correctly, and some text encoded in UTF was incorrectly rejected. Another issue with character handling is that some characters which should cause fatal errors such as form feeds, Non validating dom parser byte order marks, and some characters in PUBLIC identifiers are permitted.
Perhaps the most worrisome case of wrongly accepting a document was accepting a document which omitted an end tag. This processor even accepts SGML tag minimization and exception specifications in its element Non validating dom parser declarations.
Even if this were intentional, it is a substantial bug to enable this by default on a processor calling itself an "XML" processor. The acceptance of such SGML syntax is one of the more notable patterns of errors in this processor. It is also puzzling since its validating sibling handled such syntax correctly rejecting it with fatal errors.
There were a variety of cases where array indexing exceptions were reported, or where certain syntax was incorrectly accepted.
Many of those are attributable to this being an early release. There are some issues with the reporting of errors through SAX; in many cases, the processor doesn't pass the correct exception object through, Non validating dom parser instead substitutes it for a different one.
This can affect application code. Non validating dom parser is currently a prototype, and is not available for commercial Non validating dom parser. This component of the Silfide system appears not to have received as much attention as other parts of it.
Also, it thrashes on systems with only 64 MBytes of physical memory. Support for UTF and UTF-8 encodings is not strong; the encodings don't appear to be autodetected,
Non validating dom parser their data Non validating dom parser handled incorrectly. While many other errors are visible, the diagnostics are not often clear about what was expected. Output tests seem to fail in large part because the processor reports character data outside the context of an element, where only markup exists.
Non validating dom parser number of illegal characters were accepted, including malformed surrogate pairs and out-of-range characters, which should have been rejected. This package includes validating and parsers, which may optionaly be connected to a DOM implementation.
Commercial use is permitted, and this package has been relatively stable for some time. This processor reported no conformance errors. That was a design goal of the processor. I analysed the negative results when I worked at Sun, and believe that every diagnostic reports the correct error. This is the only parser that I can report I have carefully examined for that issue. He's Non validating dom parser written the most widely used SGML implementation, and done many other things in this community.
It is available for commercial use.
This is one of the most conformant XML processors available. In contrast to the variety of problems shown by most other processors, this test suite only three categories of specification violation in XP:. In short, a reasonable design choice based on what I think of as a specification issuesome specification issues, and what appears to be two minor problems.
Wouldn't it be nice if all software was this close to its specification! Summary The bulk of the XML processors tested were non-validating ones. This table provides an alphabetical quick reference to the results of the analysis for non-validating processors:
MORE: Pure anonymous