Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Mark Feblowitz" <mfeblowitz@f...> > I'm not saying that XML Spy is perfect. There are some things that it just > punts on. I was merely commenting on its effectiveness as a Schema authoring > tool. Actually, anyone who write an XML Schema is certainly well advised to also have a schema-validating tool different from the one they are using for development and maintenance, just for the reason that implementations regularly differ. For contracts, specify that documents must validate against a schema, and specify at least two validators. For example, only this week we had a beta-tester report that the version of Xerces we use in another product does not allow a reference to an attribute definition to be "fixed" when the attribute definition already says fixed. That one problem showed up 561 times in their schema: very confusing. XML Schemas is just too big. Formalization does not necesarily help developers track down bugs. It needs to be modularized or trimmed. Make support for key/uniqueness, nillability, xsi:type and restriction an extra conformance level, for example. Good tools to use include - XSV - IBM's Schema Quality Checker - Topologi Schematron Validator (uses MSXML) http://www.topologi.com/ which are all free. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
