Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Jonathan Robie" <email@example.com>
> Anybody outside of Microsoft have enough experience with this software to
> comment on the compatibility of these tools with the XML Schema spec?
We use MSXML 4 in our free Schematron Validator utility. We have had
thousands of downloads and only a handful of comments about suspected
validation problems with XML Schemas. As negative as I am about MS as
a ruthless monopolist-in-denial, I cannot be positive enough about MSXML 4:
the XSLT is great, the transcoding works nice and strictly, and the Schema
implementation seems good, at least for conservatively written schemas.
Last year, it seemed that when there was a difference between what
Spy allowed and what MSXML 4 allowed, MSXML usually seemed to
be correct. But Spy has been improving, and the most recent comments
we had from a user concerning a difference was pretty tricky.
I second the call for MS to release a list of what bugs have been fixed, and
indeed a list of known bugs. HP was famous for making its bug lists
public, and since validation is used for contracts and for systems acceptence,
it is very important for people to know the particular limitations of their
tools. In the particular case of schema tools, a bug does not become
critical to fix when a large-enough number of people complain about it,
it is critical fix all bugs.
Also, I think it is good if MS can release services packs for MSXML as
regularly (e.g. every month), so that people who rely on validation
can push ahead with the best tools.