• To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@i...>
• Subject: Re: UPA and schema handling
• From: Paul Sumner Downey <paul.downey@w...>
• Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:18:25 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <f5bu0smra97.fsf@e...>
• References: <41729D89.6020906@u...> <4172BD45.7040409@o...> <4172F10A.1070002@u...> <4173151B.90700@o...> <4173201E.20001@u...> <f5bu0smra97.fsf@e...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Henry S. Thompson wrote:
[snip]
>>    In our opinion the detection of a non-deterministic model
>>    as an error in a DTD or Schema would be wrong, and we will
>>    not implement this.
[snip]
> It is important to understand that this is a clear statement on the
> part of the manufacturer that they don't care about interop.  The
> REC is the only thing that stands as a stable point for achieving
> interop.

well, i'm no fan of the UPA rules in schema, but XMLSpy simply ignoring
UPA when *validating* schemas themselves isn't at all /helpful/, 
specially given how many people rely upon it as  their primary schema
development tool. IMO XMLSpy should at least provide a 'UPA on/off'
switch and make it obvious when a schema breaks UPA.

Paul
--
http://blog.whatfettle.com

• References:
  • UPA and schema handling
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>
  • Re: UPA and schema handling
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: UPA and schema handling
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>
  • Re: UPA and schema handling
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: UPA and schema handling
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>
  • Re: UPA and schema handling
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: AfterXQuery, are we done?)
• Next by Date: Re: Conformance testing and the XML-test-suite
• Previous by thread: Re: UPA and schema handling
• Next by thread: Re: UPA and schema handling
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread