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

RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?

• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>, "'Jonathan Robie'" <jonathan.robie@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:36:05 -0800

4.0 is certainly a big improvement over previous versions, in terms of
documentation. Also, it seems to have more useful APIs exposing schema
constructs than most tools I've looked at (which all too often just embed
validation in a black box fashion within the parser). I haven't studied
Xerces' new XNI architecture in any depth, yet, to compare on this point.
The only other tool that seems to offer strong APIs, in this regard, is
Sun's MSV. I'd be happy to hear of others. I'd also be interested to hear
from anyone who has tested conformance of Sun's MSV. (I always hear about
Xerces, XSV, MSXML, and XML Spy on this list, but never hear anyone
mentioning any real world use of MSV.)

One *huge* gripe I have with Microsoft, though, is that they issue "bug fix"
releases (like the one that Dare announced just a few days ago) but provide
no release notes to indicate what, specifically, has been fixed or what
known bugs are outstanding. I don't think it's meaningful to offer up an
implementation as a "reference implementation" if they are not willing to
engage in full disclosure on this matter (which I would *really* like to see
them do anyway). I remember even at one point downloading an XML installer
from Microsoft, then noticing that it's indicated version number was
precisely the same as one I had previously downloaded, but it contained a
different number of bytes. This sort of thing really should be addressed. As
a partner of Microsoft, we should be able to get release notes telling us
what has been fixed and what known issues remain in the tools, and we
shouldn't have to wonder if two installers with the same version number are
really the same or not.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:12 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Robie'; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
> 
> 
> I can't compare it to too many others, but so far, I've 
> had good luck with the MS or MS-based tools for XML Schema. 
> My bad luck is usually with their documentation. :-(
> 
> len
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@s...]
> 
> Anybody outside of Microsoft have enough experience with this 
> software to 
> comment on the compatibility of these tools with the XML Schema spec?
 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by Date: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Previous by thread: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by thread: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread