|
You can uses Xerces with a Java API or download one
of the command line validators such as XSV or MSXML and invoke it via
java.lang.Runtime's exec( ) method.
--
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #168
I will plan in
advance what to do with each of my enemies if they are
captured. That way, I
will never have to order someone to be tied up
while I decide his
fate.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:36
AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] validating against
the standard W3C
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
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
|
