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

Re: Different Validation in XML Spy 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4

• To: "DuCharme, Bob \(LNG\)" <bob.ducharme@l...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Different Validation in XML Spy 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4
• From: "Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III" <winchel@m...>
• Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:50:53 -0400
• References: <68A404048D91DB4E8DB28B90723BB29CC54AFB@l...>

> >Has anyone else come across problems with XML Spy 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 such
as
> >those described below?
> >...
> >I have attempted to validate the xml instance with the following schema
> >(below) in:
> >
> >MSXML 4.0 (successfully)
> >MSXML 4.0 SP1 (successfully)
> >XML Spy 4.2 (successfully)
> >XML Spy 4.3 (*un*successfully)
> >XML Spy 4.4 (*un*successfully)
> >
> ><snip/>
> >
> >In any case, validation in the products above are inconsistent.  I have
not
> >tried anything else.  I hope that XML Spy 4.3 and 4.4 simply have a bug,
in
> >which case, I also hope the bug will be fixed in a future version.
>
> Another possibility is that, as part of the upgrade, it's now catching
> things that it didn't catch before but was supposed to. I've seen XMLSpy
> treat illegal DTDs as legal, usually because after replacing a parameter
> entity reference with the entity value it didn't check that the resulting
> combination of the entity value and the text around it was legal DTD
syntax.
> When I reported this bug to them, they said "thanks, we'll add it to our
> list"; when I asked to see the list, they said "No."


XML Spy customer support emailed me back and confirmed there is a difference
in validation between 4.2 and 4.3/4.4.   They also said they would add it to
their list, which I understand and with which I don't have a problem,
provided it is resolved in a reasonable time.

>
> That being said, I just checked your document against your schema and your
> friend's against his with the dom.ASBuilder utility that comes with Xerces
2
> Java (see http://xml.apache.org/xerces2-j/samples-dom.html#ASBuilder) and
> the stdinparse utility that comes with Xerces C++ and neither had a
problem
> with it.

A number of people have said the instance is valid against the schema and
that the schema is good, so I feel this is a bug in 4.3/4.4.

Thank you for your effort.


>
> > Which is the right behaviour according to W3C standard ??
>
> Can't we just look in the Schema Recommendation to find out?
>
> Just kidding


:-)


Todd

• References:
  • RE: Different Validation in XML Spy 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4
    • From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: The sky is falling! XML's dirty secret! Go back!It's a trap!
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schema: Getting lookup tables from DB
• Previous by thread: RE: Different Validation in XML Spy 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4
• Next by thread: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread