Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XMLSchema Qu
 On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 9:27 AM -0500 11/25/03, Betty Harvey wrote: > > > > SGML Problems > > > >. High initial investment > >. Complexity > >. Too many options/features > >. Vendors supported a subset of features > >. Applications weren't portable because of various feature sets > >. Lack of intuitive end-user software > > Fear of "pointy brackets" (<>) > > If you ask the question of XML, and not XML schema, then we're doing > much better. The only ones that you could even argue haven't been met > are "Too many options/features" and "Lack of intuitive end-user > software", but you could also argue the other way on those points. I > do think basic XML 1.0 has too many options, but I don't find the > problem crippling. And end-user software may have taken a little > while to get here but now it's popping up all over the place, even in > Microsoft Office. If DTD's are what we work with, I would agree that we have made it easier. However, I believe that DTDs may be on their deathbed and are now considered deprecated or legacy. The reality is that most organizations are using schema's for all "new" projects. The U.S. Government recommends the use of W3C Schemas <quote source="Federal XML Developer's Guide"> Only ISO 8879 Document Type Definitions and W3C Schema Part 1:Structures and W3C Schema Part 2:Datatypes SHALL be used to define XML document structures. Developers of data-oriented schemas in DTD syntax SHOULD migrate to XML Schemas. Developers MAY elect to use DTDs for markup of data that is strictly document-oriented (sentence, paragraph, chapter, appendix, etc.). However, the XML Schema language is the preferred method. </quote> Policy makers don't always understand the technical implications of the policies they are developing. This thread peaked my interest because I was provided a schema that validated with two parsers, failed validation with 3 parsers. Passed parsing with another application but the application 'blew up' when trying to validate or parse a document of the schema. I was also moving between MS Windows and Linux, as well as using XSV at the W3C site. All parsers that fail give me a different error message. Different parsers also handle namespaces differently also. Some see it as 'text' which is the way the namespace spec says it should, while other parsers go looking for the URI in the namespace and if it doesn't find it fails. My initial question is still unanswered - which W3C schema can I trust to validate a schema (I will take 95%)? Right now I don't have confidence in any of the schema parsers. I want a parser that provides me the same amount of confidence that I have in James Clark NSGMLS. Betty -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Betty Harvey | Phone: 410-787-9200 FAX: 9830 Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. | harvey@e... | Washington,DC XML Users Grp URL: http://www.eccnet.com | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/ 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
