pascal
/
fpc
mirror de https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source.git


			
							123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485
							<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
    "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "doc/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<!--
#
# $Id: template.xml,v 1.3 2000/07/15 19:12:14 dbrownell Exp $
#
# Copyright (c) 1999-2000 by David Brownell.  All Rights Reserved.
#
# This program is free software; you may use, copy, modify, and
# redistribute it under the terms of the LICENSE with which it was
# originally distributed.
#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
# LICENSE for more details.
#
-->

<!--
    This document is a template for the output of a test report.
    It uses processing instructions to flag where the certain
    types of test reporting data should be placed.  That's in
    roughly three categories:

    - Report identification ... identifying the XML processor,
      when the test was run, and so on.  These are integrated
      using processing instructions

	<?run-id VALUE?>

      where VALUE is "name", "date", "type", "general-entities",
      "parameter-entities", and some other values.

    - Tests which always mean the same thing ... for example,
      all processors must accept all valid documents, reject
      everything that isn't well-formed, and may handle "optional"
      errors in a variety of manners.

	<?table valid?> or <?table not-wf?> etc
    
      The "table" PI causes a set of table rows to be emitted.
    
    - The "invalid" test cases are interpreted differently
      depending on whether the processor validates or not;
      this requires a conditional feature, and also calls for
      the table to be generated differently.

	<?if validating?> or <?if nonvalidating?>
	<?table invalid positive?>
	<?table invalid negative?>
	<?endif?>
    
      As a positive test, results without a diagnostic are not
      printed; as a negative test, they are printed (so diagnostics
      can be analyzed).

      NOTE:  if/endif do not nest!!  They must have the same
      parent node !!
    
    The intent of the template is to let the boilerplate change
    more readily, including organization of the report.  Some
    parts of the report are not readily changed; these include
    some table style features that don't appear to be controllable
    through the style sheet, column ordering, and labels for the
    diagnostics which are constructed by the test harness.

    Also, do try to make sure that this template remains valid
    to the "transitional" level of XHTML.  The use of "bgcolor"
    attributes and "center" tags are the main reasons this isn't
    "strict" (HTML 4.0).  Perhaps one could trust CSS that far,
    but not all browsers handle CSS, even that well.
-->

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
    <title><?run-id name?> XML <?run-id type?> Processor</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; CHARSET=utf-8"/>	
</head><body bgcolor="#eeeeff">

<h1>XML Processor Conformance Report:<br/>
<em><?run-id name?></em></h1>

<p> This document is the output of an
<a href="http://xmlconf.sourceforge.net/">XML test harness</a>.
It reports on the conformance of the following
XML 1.0 processor configuration: </p>

<center><table bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">XML Processor</td>
	<td><?run-id description?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Parser Class</td>
	<td><?run-id name?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Processing Mode</td>
	<td><?run-id type?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">General Entities</td>
	<td><?run-id general-entities?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Parameter Entities</td>
	<td><?run-id parameter-entities?></td>
	</tr>
</table></center>

<p> The results were as reported through the parser's API to
this particular test harness and execution environment: </p>

<center><table bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test Run Date</td>
	<td><?run-id date?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Harness and Version</td>
	<td><?run-id harness?><br/><?run-id version?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Runtime Environment</td>
	<td><?run-id java?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Host OS Info</td>
	<td><?run-id os?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Suite of Testcases</td>
	<td><?run-id testsuite?></td>
	</tr>
</table></center>

<p> An summary of test results follows.  To know the actual test status,
<b>someone must examine the result of each passed negative test</b>
(and informative test) to make sure it failed for the right reason.
That examination may cause the counts of failed tests to increase
(and passed tests to decrease), changing a provisional "conforms" status
to a "does not conform".  </p>

<center><table bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Status</td>
	<td><?run-id status?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Total Passed Tests (provisional)</td>
	<td><?run-id passed?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Passed Negative Tests (provisional)</td>
	<td><?run-id passed-negative?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Failed Tests (provisional)</td>
	<td><?run-id failed?></td>
	</tr>
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Tests Skipped</td>
	<td><?run-id skipped?></td>
	</tr>
</table></center>

<p> Sections of this report are:
<a href="#explanation">Explanation of Tables</a>;
<a href="#positive">Positive Tests</a>, cases where this processor should
report no errors;
<a href="#negative">Negative Tests</a>, documents for which this processor
must report the known errors; and
<a href="#optional">Informative Tests</a>, documents with errors which
processors are not required to report. </p>

<p> <em> <b>NOTE:</b> The OASIS/NIST test suite is currently in draft state,
and can't actually be used without modifications to the configuration file,
which is used both to generate the test documentation published at the
OASIS/NIST site and to operate this test harness.  In some cases, test
cases may need to be reclassified; this would affect results attributed
to parsers.  Accordingly, treat these results as preliminary.</em></p>

<hr/><h2><a name="explanation">
Explanation of Tables
</a></h2>

<p>Sections presenting test results are composed largely of tables, with
explanations focussing on exactly what those tables indicate.  Diagnostics
for failed tests are presented in italics, with a cherry colored background,
to highlight the result.  Diagnostics for succesful tests should as a rule
only exist for negative tests.  Initial parenthesized comments typically
come from the test harness. </p>

<p> Some such comments indicate the reporting category defined in the XML
specification.  Some low-fidelity processor APIs don't expose recoverable
errors, which can make validation work awkward.</p>

<dl>
    <dt><b>(fatal)</b></dt>
	<dd>The diagnostic was reported as a fatal error.  Such errors are
	primarily well-formedness errors, such as the violation of XML 1.0
	syntax rules or of well formedness constraints.
	<em>In some underfeatured parser APIs, this may be the
	only kind of error that gets reported.</em>
	</dd>
    <dt><b>(error)</b></dt>
	<dd>The diagnostic was reported as a recoverable error.  Such
	errors primarily used to report validation errors, which are all
	violations of validity constraints, but some other errors are also
	classed as nonfatal.</dd>
    <dt><b>(warning)</b></dt>
	<dd>The diagnostic was reported as a warning; warnings are purely
	informative and may be emitted in a number of cases identified by
	the XML 1.0 specification (as well as in other cases).</dd>
</dl>

<p> Other such comments may indicate other categories of conformance issue.
For example, some errors relate to problematic implementation of SAX;
and in exceptional cases, the harness can be forced to report a failure
on some test. </p>

<dl>
    <dt><b>(thrown <em>classname</em>) ... abnormal</b></dt>
	<dd>The named exception was directly thrown.  <em>If the exception
	is a SAXException (or a subclass thereof) this suggests an error in
	the parser</em> (violating the SAX API specification) since it should
	normally have used the SAX ErrorHandler instead.</dd>
    <dt><b>(odd <em>classname</em>) ... abnormal</b></dt>
	<dd> After the identified exception was reported through the
	ErrorHandler, an exception of the named class was thrown directly.
	<em>This suggests an error in the parser</em>, since the parser 
	either failed to continue after an error (or warning) which is
	required to be continuable, or else it did not pass the exception
	thrown by the application back to the application. </dd>
    <dt><b>(EXCEPTION - DIRECTED FAILURE) ... abnormal</b></dt>
	<dd> This test case was explicitly failed by the test operator;
	the test was not run.  This may be done in the case of parsers with
	severe bugs which completely prevented handling the test case,
	typically because the parser seems to "hang" by entering an
	infinite loop.</dd>
</dl>

<p> In all cases, negative tests that appear to pass (diagnostics presented
with a white background) must be individually examined in the report below.
The diagnostic provided by the processor must correspond to the description
of the test provided; if the processor does not report the matching error,
the seeming "pass" is in fact an error of a type the test harness could
not detect or report.  That error is either a conformance bug, or an error
in the diagnostic being produced; or, rarely, both.</p>

<?if nonvalidating?>
<p> Nonvalidating processors may skip some tests if the tests require
processing a class of external entities (general, parameter, or both)
which that processor is known not to handle.  If processor handling of
entities is not known, all such tests are skipped, in order to prevent
misreporting.  </p>
<?endif?>

<hr/><h2><a name="positive">
Positive Tests
</a> </h2>

<p> All conformant XML 1.0 processors must accept "valid" input documents
without reporting any errors, and moreover must report the correct output
data to the application when processing those documents.  Nonvalidating
processors
<?if nonvalidating?>
<em>(such as this one)</em>
<?endif?>
must also accept "invalid" input documents without reporting any errors.
These are called "Positive Tests" because they ensure that the processor
just "does the right thing" without reporting any problems. </p>

<p> In the interest of brevity, the only tests listed here are those which
produce diagnostics of some kind, such as test failures.  In some cases,
warnings may be reported when processing these documents, but these do not
indicate failures.</p>

<p> No interpretation of these results is necessary; every "error" or
"fatal" message presented here is an XML conformance failure.  Maintainers
of an XML processor will generally want to fix their software so that it
conforms fully to the XML specification. </p>


<h3> Valid Documents </h3>

<p> All XML processors must accept all valid documents.  This group
of tests must accordingly produce no test failures. </p>

<table id="valid" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Section and [Rules]</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test ID</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Description</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Diagnostic</td>
	</tr>
    <?table valid?>
</table>

<h3> Output Tests </h3>

<p> The XML specification places requirements on the data which is reported
by XML processors to applications.
<!-- XXX address infoset implications for XML conformance ... -->
This data flows through the processor API ... or it is not available,
so the processor is in those respects nonconformant.
For example, SAX1 did not report external entities which were not
included; but SAX2 does.
These output tests verify conformance with the specification by
recording that data and comparing it with what is required for conformance
with the XML 1.0 specification.  </p>

<p> At this writing, the OASIS output tests have several categories of
known omissions (or weak output test coverage).  These include: </p> <ul>

<li>No output tests address the additional requirements which validating
processors must satisfy.  That is, reporting which whitespace is ignorable,
and reporting declarations of unparsed entities. </li>

<li>Only a few output tests have been provided which address the
requirement to report NOTATION declarations, and some of those
appear to be missing. </li>

<li>No tests address the requirement to report external entities
which were not included.</li>

</ul>

<p> Note that output tests automatically fail in cases where the processor
failed to parse the (valid) input document used to generate the
output data.</p>

<p>In some test harnessses, the output tests are unreliable because
they can't directly compare the parser output against reference data.
Such issues should be noted in the documentation for that harness.  </p>

<p> Also, and not a bug, in some cases these diagnostics may seem like
they say two equivalent results are not equal.  The issue is that some
differences, often those in reported whitespace, aren't easily visible
in this report.  HTML hides many such differences (because it normalizes
whitespace before displaying it), and the method used to display the
differing results may also mask some issues.  </p>

<table id="valid-output" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test ID</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Diagnostic</td>
	</tr>
    <?table valid output?>
</table>

<?if nonvalidating?>
<h3> Invalid Documents </h3>

<p> As noted above, nonvalidating processors must accept all documents
which are well formed, but invalid.  This same behavior would be delivered
by a validating processor, if the application chose to continue processing
after receiving each report of a validity error, and not report such
validity errors.  (These tests are run as "negative" tests for validating
processors, since in those cases it is important that the correct validity
errors be reported and that they be reported at the correct level.) </p>

<table id="invalid-positive" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Section and [Rules]</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test ID</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Description</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Diagnostic</td>
	</tr>
    <?table invalid positive?>
</table>
<?endif?>

<h2><a name="negative">
Negative Tests
</a></h2>

<p> All conformant XML 1.0 processors must reject documents which are not
well-formed.  In addition, validating processors
<?if validating?>
<em>(such as this one)</em>
<?endif?>
must report the validity errors for invalid documents.
These are called <em>Negative Tests</em> because the test is intended
to establish that errors are reported when they should be.
</p>

<p> Moreover, the processor must both fail for the appropriate reason (given
by the parser diagnostic) and must report an error at the right level ("error"
or "fatal").  If both criteria were not considered, a processor which failed
frequently (such as by failing to parse any document at all) would appear to
pass a large number of conformance tests   Unfortunately, the test driver can
only tell whether the error was reported at the right level.  It can't
determine whether the processor failed for the right reason. </p>

<p> That's where a person to interpret these test results is critical.  Such
a person analyses the diagnostics, reported here, for negative tests not
already known to be failures (for not reporting an error, or reporting one
at the wrong level).  If the diagnostic reported for such tests doesn't match
the failure from the test description, there is an error in the diagnostic or
in the processor's XML conformance (or sometimes in both).  </p>

<p> For this processor, <b><?run-id passed-negative?> diagnostics must be
examined</b> to get an accurate evaluation of its negative test status.</p>

<?if validating?>
<h3> Invalid Documents </h3>

<p> Validating processors must correctly report "error" diagnostics
for all documents which are well formed but invalid.  Such errors must
also be, "at user option", recoverable so that the validating parser
may be used in a nonvalidating mode by ignoring all validity errors.
<em>Some parser APIs do not support recoverability.</em>
Such issues should be noted in the documentation for the API, and
for its test harness.
</p>

<table id="invalid-negative" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Section and [Rules]</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test ID</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Description</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Diagnostic</td>
	</tr>
    <?table invalid negative?>
</table>
<?endif?>

<h3> Documents which are not Well-Formed </h3>

<p> All XML processors must correctly reject (with a "fatal"
error) all XML documents which are not well-formed.
<?if nonvalidating?>
(Nonvalidating processors may skip some of these tests, if
they require handling of a type of external entity which the
processor ignores.  Such skipped tests are not reported.)
<?endif?>
</p>

<table id="not-wf" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Section and [Rules]</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test ID</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Description</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Diagnostic</td>
	</tr>
    <?table not-wf?>
</table>

<h2><a name="optional">
Informative Tests
</a></h2>

<p> Certain XML documents are specified to be errors, but the handling
of those documents is not fully determined by the XML 1.0 specification.
As a rule, these errors may be reported in any manner whatsoever, or
completely ignored, without consequence in terms of conformance to the
XML 1.0 specification.  And some of these documents don't have errors;
documents in encodings other than UTF-8 and UTF-16 are legal, but not
all processors are required to parse them.  </p>

<p>Such "optional" errors are listed here for informational purposes, since
processors which ignore such errors may cause document creators to create
documents which are not accepted by all conformant XML 1.0 processors.
(And of course, processors which produce incorrect diagnostics for such
cases should be avoided.) </p>

<table id="error" width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="4" border="1">
    <tr>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Section and [Rules]</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Test ID</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Description</td>
	<td bgcolor="#ffffcc">Diagnostic</td>
	</tr>
	<?table error?>
</table>


<p> This report was produced by Free Software from
<a href="http://xmlconf.sourceforge.net/">http://xmlconf.sourceforge.net</a>,
and you should be able to reproduce these results yourself. </p>

</body></html>