Re: [Classpathx-xml] Re: failing tests

[David Brownell]

Chris Burdess wrote:

> Under these conditions I don't think it's reasonable to consider the
> existing behaviour a test failure.

Right, but I don't think AElfred2 originally reported text
as "ignorable" unless there was a DTD saying it was.
Of course it's been a long time since I touched any of
that code ... :)

So it's quite possible that while that test is bogus,
the parser should also change.  It's that sort of thing
that makes test software particularly hard to write:
there's a huge temptation to tweak tests to make one's
own pet implementation look best, and to read specs
accordingly (even when that changes their meaning).

- Dave