Hi, Have a look at: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5849 http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=1039
All the best, George ------------------------------------------------------------- George Cristian Bina mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] COO - sync.ro Phone +40-(0)251-461480, +40-(0)251-461481 Fax +40-(0)251-461482 Mobile +40-(0)723-224067 SyncRO Soft srl, Bd N. Titulescu 170, Craiova, 1100 - Romania http://www.sync.ro <oXygen/> XML Editor - http://www.oxygenxml.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Chatziparaskewas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM Subject: RE: XMLSchema for XMLSchema validation > Hi Bob > > I understand, but then, as the XML Schema normative lives in the > "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; namespace, should it not confirm to > itself? Any errors while validating the XML Schema normative would either > denote inconsistencies in the schema or errors in the parser. > > Anyway, I am actually not interested 'in validating' the XML Schema, I am > just interested to parse it in order to get a representation of it. In order > to parse it I create a xerces SchemaGrammar object, so I need to 'validate' > it ... > > BTW, I had a look at the eclipse xsd project ... Does not look too bad and > as far as I can see the model used is quite intuitive, at least much more > than the xerses stuff. But, to download eclipse (50MB!) in order to just > compile it seems a little bit like overkill to me as I am just interested in > a library which I may need to bundle with additional software anyway. But I > promise to give it a try whenever I have time to watch my download window > for a couple of hours. > > Regards > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Schloss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 4 November 2002 4:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: XMLSchema for XMLSchema validation > > > > > > > Alex, > > Because many of the constraints that an XML Schema must conform to > cannot be expressed in terms of structural or syntactic constraints > expressable in an XML Schema, if you succeed at what you are doing you will > still not know if the input schema you processed is really totally correct. > > There are several programs that do "validation plus extra analysis" > of XML Schemas to determine if they are legal. One that I have been > involved in creating is the IBM XML Schema Quality Checker, which you can > find at http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xmlsqc . These kinds of > programs, because they are not designed to being validation of document > instances during parsing, can do the most expensive checks that validating > parsers like Xerces-J sometimes leave out. > > Good luck, > Bob > > XML/XSL Transformational Systems > IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center > Yorktown Heights, New York, USA > > > > > > > "Alex > Chatziparaskewas" To: "Xerces-J-User" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: > Subject: XMLSchema for > XMLSchema validation > 11/02/2002 08:03 > PM > Please respond to > xerces-j-user > > > > > > Hi there > > I am trying to validate a XMLSchema for XMLSchema against itself using > xerces 2.2.0. But so far I have not been successful. I tried the 'current' > one from the w3c website first and ended up with errors like to following > ... > > [Error] datatypes.xsd:80:45: st-props-correct.4.1: The type definition is > not a valid restriction with repect to the base type 'xs:anySimpleType'. > [Error] datatypes.xsd:80:45: cos-applicable-facets: Facet 'whiteSpace' is > not allowed by this type. > [ > > I tried another one but it failed as well. Of course I have found the > errata > section to the 'current' XMLSchema normative and I have to confess that I > am > far too lazy to fix everything by myself (success not guaranteed as well > ...). > > But, of course I can not be the first one who tried this task. There must > be > a valid 'schema' flying around. But where is it? > > Regards > Alex > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
