It is allow using collada specification to write files that are syntactically 100% collada 1.4.x compliance, but that are a subset of the grammar?
Say for example changing the extension from xml, or dae to something else.
The reason I say this is because I had found that plugging makers for popular modeling packages violates Collada specifications.
It appears that Fcollada is more strict and compliance than Collada DOM, for what I can see collada Dom is a wrapper over XML with not type validations of any kind.
My primary concern is to have true data exchangeable functionality, but only on the type of data I am operating. Collada provides that but it provides a lot more.
It may sound a triviality, but for example if I export a cube from XSI, I can load it in Max but it comes with a whole set of other things, like camera, light, procedural model, etc.
If I experts a cube from Max then XSI collada do not understand the format.
And I give up on blender, blender exported files are not collada compliance at all.
So for me saying that my library supports Collada will be a cause for debates, each time some one try to load a file with a package that does not support the data. Since I am an underdog I do not want to go into debates and explanation. But if the file have a different extension I do not have to explain anything, It will be collada as long as the package plug-in is 100% collade compliance. And it will be upto the user to rename it to DAE.
So far all files I generates can be loaded and parsed by Fcollada library, the Max plugin, and Collada viewer from free soft where. But not by Blender, XSI, and I had not tested on Maya.
It is possible that I just do not understand Collada but I had some sample file that I had created and I can post a link, perhaps some body would like to test then with this packages and maybe tell me if I am doing something wrong.
They go from a simple a cube to medium complexity to fairly complex hierarchies.