Re: [xml-dev] Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?

[Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>]

Surely the third <any> element in the instance is invalid?  It has three tokens in it.

> I may also still have missed something in the rec and my example may be 
> invalid, but the point would remain that if you take 4 W3C XML Schema 
> processors on a simple test case, you have very often 4 different answers.

Two of the products Eric are using are betas (MSXML and Xerces) and 
the XML Spy is not the most recent (I don't know if it fixes the problem,
and I don't know if the Turbo XML is the most recent.)  All it shows is that
developers are leaving this till last or too late, rather than that there is some 
crisis of complexity.

As for the complexity in the area of datatypes, I have not heard anyone say that
the facet-based approach is not the most elegant way to treat the problem.

What is the alternative:  Only simple types? No specification of 
type restrictions on an instance element?  Using little languages
rather than facets (Schematron's approach, b.t.w., and powerful but
messy)?  

I certainly could live without being able to restrict types
on an instance, but being able to decorate an instance with
the same type as in the schema allows architectural processing
(like Francis Norton's recent TypeTagger tool) which is
certainly useful.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe