• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Subject: Re: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:54:33 -0700
• Cc: 'Gregor' <iamgregor@g...>,'Rick Jelliffe' <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20050427163211.0AC3613D890@s...>
• References: <20050427163211.0AC3613D890@s...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Michael Kay wrote:
>>How do you know it's 98% conformant?
> 
> Of course any number is arm-waving. If one had a set of conformance tests,
> one could say how many of the tests are passed; but even then that doesn't
> exactly correlate to how much of the specification has been implemented.

So I take it one doesn't have a set of conformance tests? The 98% number 
is entirely subjective, or rather, expert opinion?

If so, short of soliciting your expert opinion on the several other 
schema processors out there, it's not obvious how to reconcile Henry 
Thompson's assertion that the conformance problem is largely solved with 
the contradictory evidence given by Rick Jelliffe and others.

Bob Foster

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSD spec question
• Next by Date: ANN: Launch of worlds first Simple XML based Accounting System : ceBit Sydney 2005
• Previous by thread: ANN: Launch of worlds first Simple XML based Accounting System : ceBit Sydney 2005
• Next by thread: RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread