• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Subject: Re: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:52:36 -0700
• Cc: 'Gregor' <iamgregor@g...>,'Rick Jelliffe' <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20050427084206.A01E02FD76@l...>
• References: <20050427084206.A01E02FD76@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Michael Kay wrote:
 > It's not actually that hard to write a conformant schema processor, or at
 > least to get to the 98% mark where the only non-conformances are in areas
 > where the spec writers themselves still have debates about the exact
 > meaning.

How do you know it's 98% conformant? Or more generally, how can one know 
a given processor is xx% conformant? That would certainly move this 
discussion out of the hand-waving stage.

Bob Foster

• Follow-Ups:
  • ANN: Launch of worlds first Simple XML based Accounting System : ceBit Sydney 2005
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Late-Breaking Presentations Announced for XTECH 2005
• Next by Date: RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• Previous by thread: RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• Next by thread: RE: incompatible uses of XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread