Lists Home |
Date Index |
> >Has anyone else come across problems with XML Spy 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 such
> >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)
> >In any case, validation in the products above are inconsistent. I have
> >tried anything else. I hope that XML Spy 4.3 and 4.4 simply have a bug,
> >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
> 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."
XML Spy customer support emailed me back and confirmed there is a difference
in validation between 4.2 and 4.3/4.4. They also said they would add it to
their list, which I understand and with which I don't have a problem,
provided it is resolved in a reasonable time.
> 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
> 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
> with it.
A number of people have said the instance is valid against the schema and
that the schema is good, so I feel this is a bug in 4.3/4.4.
Thank you for your effort.
> > Which is the right behaviour according to W3C standard ??
> Can't we just look in the Schema Recommendation to find out?
> Just kidding