[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Schema Question

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: XML Schema Question
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:42:10 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9EF92@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9EF92@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> We are assuming that the W3C validator at
> http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv
> is the gold standard (not quite but really the reference implementation):

Assuming that any WXS validator is a "gold standard" would be a serious 
error. I am quite sure that Henry Thompson or the other authors have 
never claimed anything of the sort.

The following is based solely on anecdotes and personal observation, but 
I believe it to be true. Every WXS validator has significant errors, and 
XSV is no exception. The serious WXS user has little recourse but to 
validate with several fairly reliable validating parsers and appeal to 
the text of the standard if they report differently. I would choose the 
XSV, XercesJ, MSV and MSXML parsers. I can't be sure that at least one 
of this set will validate all documents correctly, but I am pretty sure 
that all of the set will fail on at least one test case.

Bob Foster

• References:
  • XML Schema Question
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RE : Comparison of Xml documents
• Next by Date: RE: Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Previous by thread: XML Schema Question
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schema Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread