[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com> writes:
> My impression is that there are a lot of industry schemas out there
> that do not actually conform to the spec, and a lot of validators
> that do not enforce the spec.
My experience over the last six months to a year has been more
positive -- I'm seeing more large industry schemas, and they _are_
conformant, and I'm seeing fewer "Processor X and Processor Y
disagree" messages (with one exception, see below), and most of those
are on what everyone involved agree are corner cases.
So my feeling is that the corner has been turned on interop -- of
course the new release of the test collection will enable us to
quantify this a bit better.
There is one big, embarrassing, counter-example, in the form of a
low-cost, widely-used tool which does not do very well at enforcing
conformance. As far as I can tell serious W3C XML Schema users
quickly learn they can't trust it, and back up its apparently
admirable UI with another validator for conformance checking (I say
'apparent' because I've never used said tool). Gresham's law is
always a problem :-(.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
