Title: Message

And I am willing to do that too because the kit looks cool (and actually I have used it in bits and pieces when it first arrived on the scene)…but in looking through the documentation, I don’t see any validation routines…does it support what I am talking about?  Basically validate an XML file against a Schema and tell me if it is valid or not?

 

Mike

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brian LeGros
Sent:
Friday, February 07, 2003 8:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [cf-xml] XML Schema Validation and CF5

 

Mike,

 

I had had a similar problem myself when trying to use MSXML via CF5.  I never could figure out what I was doing wrong and I knew, like yourself, MSXML was working on the server.  I went ahead used the CF XML Toolkit from torchbox, it was really nice and abstracted everything into custom tags.  It does use the MSXML parser, but I couldn't duplicate the issues I was having.  The URL for the toolkit is http://www.torchbox.com/xml/.  Hope this helps.

 

-Brian

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Craig
Sent:
Friday, February 07, 2003 5:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [cf-xml] XML Schema Validation and CF5

I found bits and pieces of this topic over the last 6-8 months but never a solution.  One person said they were going to offer a java solution and I saw a <cffunction> tag for MX using JDOM that looked promising, but I need something that is going to work in CF5.  I found one script example for CF5 that does not work (using MSXML) which is leading me to believe one of two things:  MSXML is failing on my workstation and server, which I am inclined to dismiss because Spy will validate the same XML just find and it is using MSXML by default.  The second is that CF5 cannot properly create the object model from the MSXML API.  Needless to say I am confused and could use some guidance.  Has anyone successfully done this?  In CF5?  Preferably not using anything too “outside the box”?

Reply via email to