[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Dare,
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 21:37, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> From my experience writing article about W3C XML Schema I assume you came up against the fact that no W3C XML Schema validator could validate all the examples in your book if they were non-trivial (not large, simply not simple).
Yes, and this has been the subject of another long running thread!
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200110/msg00851.html
> Did you call this to attention in your book, avoid such schemata or recommend a specific validator?
I have not recommended any specific validator thinking that this kind of
information changes a lot during the lifespan of a book and is better
maintained live on web sites.
I have tried to call attention primarly on the constructions which were
unclear in the rec and subject to discussion on xmlschema-dev and in a
lesser attempt to those on which I have seen interoperability issues (in
a lesser attempt only because my tests haven't been exhaustive and
because we can hope that this will be improve in each new release of the
validators).
This is still moving ground and I intend to keep the erratum updated on
O'Reilly web site to "close" open questions and add new ones which will
be discovered.
Eric
--
See you in San Diego.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
