Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Mark Feblowitz" <email@example.com>
> I'm not saying that XML Spy is perfect. There are some things that it just
> punts on. I was merely commenting on its effectiveness as a Schema authoring
Actually, anyone who write an XML Schema is certainly well advised to
also have a schema-validating tool different from the one they are using
for development and maintenance, just for the reason that implementations
regularly differ. For contracts, specify that documents must validate against
a schema, and specify at least two validators.
For example, only this week we had a beta-tester report that the version
of Xerces we use in another product does not allow a reference to an attribute
definition to be "fixed" when the attribute definition already says fixed. That one
problem showed up 561 times in their schema: very confusing.
XML Schemas is just too big. Formalization does not necesarily help
developers track down bugs. It needs to be modularized or trimmed.
Make support for key/uniqueness, nillability, xsi:type and restriction
an extra conformance level, for example.
Good tools to use include
- IBM's Schema Quality Checker
- Topologi Schematron Validator (uses MSXML) http://www.topologi.com/
which are all free.