Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Surely the third <any> element in the instance is invalid? It has three tokens in it. > I may also still have missed something in the rec and my example may be > invalid, but the point would remain that if you take 4 W3C XML Schema > processors on a simple test case, you have very often 4 different answers. Two of the products Eric are using are betas (MSXML and Xerces) and the XML Spy is not the most recent (I don't know if it fixes the problem, and I don't know if the Turbo XML is the most recent.) All it shows is that developers are leaving this till last or too late, rather than that there is some crisis of complexity. As for the complexity in the area of datatypes, I have not heard anyone say that the facet-based approach is not the most elegant way to treat the problem. What is the alternative: Only simple types? No specification of type restrictions on an instance element? Using little languages rather than facets (Schematron's approach, b.t.w., and powerful but messy)? I certainly could live without being able to restrict types on an instance, but being able to decorate an instance with the same type as in the schema allows architectural processing (like Francis Norton's recent TypeTagger tool) which is certainly useful. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
