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

Re: incompatible uses of XML Schema

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:05:53 +1000
• In-reply-to: <000401c54b4c$b1eb9050$0115a8c0@E...>
• References: <20050427163211.0AC3613D890@s...> <000401c54b4c$b1eb9050$0115a8c0@E...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

 

>  If so, short of soliciting your expert opinion on the several other 
> schema processors out there, it's not obvious how to reconcile Henry 
> Thompson's assertion that the conformance problem is largely solved 
> with the contradictory evidence given by Rick Jelliffe and others.

I am a little uncomfortable with the word "evidence" here: I have been 
told of a set of problems
by users in a multi-vendor environment, and by some other users of 
different tools.
And Gregor has mentioned his issue.  But I think we need some more 
people providing
concrete examples before we can say much more than "some combinations of 
some tools have
some problems for some people with some schemas" (which isn't saying 
very much at all.) 

Logically it looks like there is a problem, but is there one in fact? 
For example,
if multi-vendor SOA enviroments are rare, then these incompatabilities 
may not
matter.  But if there are in fact key incompatibilities by accident or 
design,
then safe practise needs to be figured out and publicized, and the 
market needs
to provide disincentives for incomplete support of schemas.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Prev by Date: Re: XSD spec question
• Next by Date: Re: XSD spec question
• Previous by thread: RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• Next by thread: Adding nodes without modifing non-infoset of a document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread