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

Re: Question on XSD validator

• To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
• Subject: Re: Question on XSD validator
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:37:33 -0700
• Cc: "<xml-dev@l...> <xml-dev@l...>" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <29bc51d20544e311e66ba5b9eb98e0ff@i...>
• References: <200505181726.j4IHQLft016979@u...> <29bc51d20544e311e66ba5b9eb98e0ff@i...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On May 18, 2005, at 20:19, Michael Kay wrote:
>> By contrast, XML Spy uses its own schema processor, which is not 
>> always 100% conformant with the spec.
> 
> Has anyone systematically surveyed the conformance of various XSD 
> validator implementations? Is there a comparison table somewhere on the 
> Web?

Percentages are irrelevant in this case. Last time I checked, the XML 
Spy parser was explicitly and defiantly non-conformant.

> I have often seen--as in this thread--various qualifications suggesting 
> that a particular implementation is not 100% conformant or is partial, 
> etc. Xerces claims fullness but I've been told it doesn't implement the 
> latest errata.

Xerces tries hard. I know of at least one case where they implemented an 
erratum that was later withdrawn.

The problem is, it is generally conceded that due to the 
complexity/inscrutability of the XML Schema specification that no 
processor could ever claim 100% conformance. In fact, a claim to any 
percentage is suspect, as there is no standard conformance test that 
might be used to verify it.

Bob Foster

• References:
  • Re: Question on XSD validator
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Question on XSD validator
• Next by Date: RE: Question on XSD validator
• Previous by thread: Re: Question on XSD validator
• Next by thread: RE: Question on XSD validator
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread