RE: [xml-dev] validating against the standard W3C
Lists Home |
Date Index |
won't say that is it impossible but XMLSpy has a COM based API. So it would be
easier if you wouls use one of the following programming languages C, C++,
VisualBasic, Delphi or scripting languages like VBScript and
i use xmlspy with a java api ...
want to call a validation on the file before uploading to a
validation has to be done in a java context (java api)
Tuesday, December 11, 2001 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] validating against the
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... VerifierFactory factory = new
while working with our
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...
Schema schema = factory.compileSchema("http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd");
Verifier verifier = schema.newVerifier();
Verifier verifier =
Has anyone an idea about
how we should validate our xml files against this standard??
for helping, 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.
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.
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.
is called for - both in working through the current situation and also in
waiting for the next iteration of (constantly improving) tools.