Hey,
Neil Graham wrote:
Hi Elisha,
The code Boris has looks pretty much optimal to me. Rest assured that
lots of work went into Xerces-C to enable it to verify the validity of
schema documents, both as per the constraints in the Schema for Schemas
and the language in the Rec. You might also want to take a look at some
of the new features that have been added to do things like validate the
contents of schema annotations with respect to components of the schema.
Absolutely, and I don't want it to appear that I think that is not the
case. XML Schema is incredibly complex. During my work with various
standards I have seen many issues with the spec. If I am writing a
normal schema that uses well used features then I would have complete
confidence. If I was, for example, creating a new schema or standard
that makes incredibly extensive use of substitution groups, like XBRL
does, then I would validate using several different applications. This
is as much to ensure that whatever end users will be using (EG XML Spy)
can handle the schema as much as xerces.
The problem of conformance is due to the complexity of the standard, not
the lack of work everyone puts in. There is still a strong (in my
opinion) feeling in the XML community that it is far too complex. At the
closing keynote of XML 2004 Tim Brey said we should throw it away!
I hope this makes it a little clearer,
Gareth
--
Gareth Reakes, Managing Director Parthenon Computing
+44-1865-811184 http://www.parthcomp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
