[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Have a look at XML spy 2004's FAQ:
http://www.xmlspy.com/support_faq_ide_schema.html#q6_schema
It says in part:
In our opinion the detection of a non-deterministic model
as an error in a DTD or Schema would be wrong, and we will
not implement this.
Sounds to me as if they're ignoring a normative portion of the spec, and
don't consider this a bug....
Bob Foster wrote:
> I don't think the problem is people ignoring parts they don't like. The
> spec isn't easy to understand or to implement and there is no concept of
> certification. Anyone can claim to process XML Schema regardless of the
> actual coverage of their implementation. (In fact, the existence of
> several partially conformant "implementations" is an important milestone
> in obtaining Recommendation status for the spec.) In such an
> environment, people ship what they can get away with and work the bug
> list over time.
>
> Bob
>
> Ian Graham wrote:
> > Seems unfortunate that vendors can just ignore normative portions of a
> > spec. I can understand differences in implementation where the spec is
> > complex, or unclear. But ignoring parts you don't like is simply goofy.
> > To reuse your phrase, I would have to call that "bad art" rather than
> > "state of the art" ;-/
> >
> > Best --
> > Ian
> > Bob Foster wrote:
> >
> >> Unique particle attribution is normative and not optional, but not all
> >> processors check it correctly and some processors check it optionally.
> >> Of course that leads to interoperability errors, and not just around
> >> UPA, but that's the state of the art.
> >>
> >> Bob Foster
> >> http://xmlbuddy.com/
> >>
> >> Ian Graham wrote:
> >> > I've been fiddling around with very simple schemas that violate the
> >> UPA
> >> > constraint -- and have found that some schema tools flag UPA errors
> >> > (e.g. oXygen), while others (e.g. XML spy) do not. This
> inconsistency
> >> > is, at best, confusing -- but at worst would seem to lead to
> >> > interoperability problems, since a designer could build a schema
> with
> >> > one toolset and find it is not acceptable to another.
> >> >
> >> > So am I missing something here? Is UPA really an inviolable
> >> constraint
> >> > [my interpretation], or is it just a guideline, in the manner of
> >> > Appendix E 'Deterministic Content Models (Non-Normative)' in the
> >> XML 1.0
> >> > specification? And if it's just a guideline, would this not lead to
> >> > interoperability problems as I've just outlined?
> >> >
> >> > And, if someone already went down this rat hole, can anyone refer
> >> me to
> >> > the corresponding xml-dev (or other) thread ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Best --
> >> >
> >> > Ian
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Ian Graham
H: 416.769.2422 / W: 416.513.5656 / E: <ian . graham AT utoronto . ca>
|
