[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>Has anyone else come across problems with XML Spy 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 such as
>those described below?
>...
>I have attempted to validate the xml instance with the following schema
>(below) in:
>
>MSXML 4.0 (successfully)
>MSXML 4.0 SP1 (successfully)
>XML Spy 4.2 (successfully)
>XML Spy 4.3 (*un*successfully)
>XML Spy 4.4 (*un*successfully)
>
><snip/>
>
>In any case, validation in the products above are inconsistent. I have not
>tried anything else. I hope that XML Spy 4.3 and 4.4 simply have a bug, in
>which case, I also hope the bug will be fixed in a future version.
Another possibility is that, as part of the upgrade, it's now catching
things that it didn't catch before but was supposed to. I've seen XMLSpy
treat illegal DTDs as legal, usually because after replacing a parameter
entity reference with the entity value it didn't check that the resulting
combination of the entity value and the text around it was legal DTD syntax.
When I reported this bug to them, they said "thanks, we'll add it to our
list"; when I asked to see the list, they said "No."
That being said, I just checked your document against your schema and your
friend's against his with the dom.ASBuilder utility that comes with Xerces 2
Java (see http://xml.apache.org/xerces2-j/samples-dom.html#ASBuilder) and
the stdinparse utility that comes with Xerces C++ and neither had a problem
with it.
> Which is the right behaviour according to W3C standard ??
Can't we just look in the Schema Recommendation to find out?
Just kidding.
Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@
snee.com> see http://www.snee.com/bob/xsltquickly for
info on book "XSLT Quickly" from Manning Publications.
|
