|
|
RE: [xml-dev] validating against the standard W3C
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
can i
use xmlspy with a java api ...
i want
to call a validation on the file before uploading to a
database
this
validation has to be done in a java context (java api)
mvg, bart
-----Original Message-----
From:
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
December 11, 2001 1:37 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject:
Re: [xml-dev] validating against the standard W3C
In a message dated
11/12/01 11:32:13 GMT Standard Time, Bart.Boogaerts@ASQ.BE writes:
at this moment, we are using MSV from Sun to validate our
schema's and it works well, good and quick...
while working with our own
schema's.
we want to validate our schema's against the standard W3C
schema but by implementing this, we get errors...
Has anyone an idea of
how we should use this standard, should we download the files and then use
them (if so where can we find them -> the correct ones)
when pointing
directly to the url, it can't validate www.w3.org...
when downloading
the file, it can't find the anySimpleType...
Source Code
VerifierFactory factory = new
com.sun.msv.verifier.jarv.TheFactoryImpl();
and:
Schema schema =
factory.compileSchema("http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd");
Verifier verifier = schema.newVerifier();
or:
Verifier verifier
= factory.newVerifier("d:/schema/XMLSchema.xsd");
Has anyone an idea about
how we should validate our xml files against this standard??
thanks for
helping, bart
Bart,
The basic problem at this
point in time is being totally sure of what the gold standard is. The W3C XML
Schema Rec, particularly Part 1, seems almost designed to be impenetrable. [I
have had my knuckles rapped before for saying that, but I still believe it to
be true.]
Inevitably implementors have to interpret the impenetrable
and implementors differ in how they do interpret it. I would suggest that at
this point in the development of XSD Schema (W3C XML Schema) tools that there
is some sort of safety in numbers.
Take a look at the schema
validation facilities in XML Spy and in Turbo XML from Extensibility. Both are
fairly good validators and have free evaluation downloads available. I spent
several weeks working with both downloads on a range of (relatively brief)
schemas. Occasionally Turbo XML (2.2.1 I think) would miss errors and slightly
more often XML Spy (4.01 I think) would declare spurious errors.
So if
you put those validators and their error messages together with the results
from the tool you are already using then you will begin to (hopefully) creep
closer to the truth.
Others may disagree but for a little time yet I
don't think one can safely assume that the absence of an error message from a
W3C XML Schema validation tool accurately predicts the absence of errors nor
does an error message necessarily accurately predict the presence of errors.
Some patience is called for - both in working through the current
situation and also in waiting for the next iteration of (constantly improving)
tools.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|