RE: Schemas in W3C working drafts

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Good advice to all of us posting drafts. :-)

Yesterday I used two validators and got two 
different results.  The first after some cleanup 
passed a schema with no errors.  The second found 
a nasty type declaration bug that I had to find 
using the ancient technique of commenting out 
declarations until... you get the point.  (BTW: 
don't sprinkle <!-- --> too liberally; you may need 
these for debugros later.  Stuff notes in the 
xsd:documentation elements. My bad on that one... )

Anyway, congratulations and a Big Bozo thank you to Rick Jeliffe 
for such a nice utility.

http://www.topologi.com/

THANK YOU!

That is a lot of firepower 
in such a little package.  Based on MSXML 4.0, 
the MS dll wins the debugging derby in round one. 

It's early.  We shouldn't be too punitive until the 
recommendation is on the vine a little longer.
I think even the validator implementors require 
a bit more ripening time.

XML Schemas are hard.  I don't think that is 
a reason not to use them.  It is a good reason 
to practice alone and in groups.  Remember to 
deflate your shoes.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


From: alexander.selkirk [mailto:alexander.selkirk@ntlworld.com]

However since there are not yet many examples of XML schemas around, could
there be
a little more effort to ensure correctness? Running a schema through a
validator and checking that the first two examples in any specification are
schema-valid prior to publishing would be helpful.