W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2000

Re: Validating XML on the Validator - Logo please?

From: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:16:53 +0100
Message-ID: <005201c0126b$962ce860$67d893c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Terje Bless" <link@tss.no>, "Karl Dubost" <kd@w3.org>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Hi al,
1) Reply to Karl Dubost
2) Reply to Bless Terje

1) Reply to Karl Dubost

> >Nothing is missing! The W3C validator only validates XML, not XML Schemas
> >(yet).
> http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xsv
> Use this form for checking a schema which is accessible via the Web,
and/or schema-validating an instance with a schema of your own.
> And
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema.html#Tools

Yes I realize that we can use XSV - Dan Connolly used it to validate the
original Schema hack page. The problem is that except for his proprietary
HTML.xsd, we have no XHTML Schema to validate it against.
What I'm really asking for is a hybrid version of the validator.w3.org and
XSV. I.e. a validator that would assume that all documents it is given that
are XML but have the xhtml namespace declared woukld be XHTML 1.0 Strict,
but could include XML Schemas. This would pave the way for a validator to
validate Modularized XHTML Families. For th meantime, maybe the XSV resulats
could be included (by choice) into the results of the W3C main Validator?

2) Reply to Terje Bless

> Rigth, so it's not doing anything wrong (no bug), it's just not ckecking
the
> linked Schemas as it should (a limitation)? It's not choking on something
> that would have been valid had Schemas been supported?

Rather, it is validating something correctly that shouldn't be correct if
validated with (for example) XSV.

> Yeah, Gerald has been pretty busy lately and the Validator has languished
a
> bit as a result. After a year when I couldn't, for practical (IRL)
reasons,
> contribute much, I'm now in the process of trying to pick up some of the
> slack by submitting patches[0]. We'll see what I can manage where Schemas
> are concerned.
IRL? The only IRL I am concerned with is Indy Racing League! I call naivety
on my part...
If you could manage to write a patch for validating Schemas on the W3C
validator, that would be an immense achievement!

> It really hinges on finding an external parser that groks this stuff.
> Reimplemeneting a full, or even partial, XML Parser is not in the cards.
> However, it may be possible to work around it with the existing parser as
> each individual file (the *.xml, the *.<whatever the Schema extension is>,
> etc.) should be valid XML, right? That means you could just manually feed
> them to a validating parser one at a time and consolidate the results.

.xsd usually. They are usually included through the use of namespaces. Any
parser ould have to recognize namespaces, and what they mean.


> The Validator relies on external parsers for all the
> hard work, and just puts a nice (no snide comments from the peanut
gallery,
> thank you! ;D) interface on top of it. No XML Parser that I'm aware of
> actually supports XHTML-Mod/XML-Schema as of yet.
XSV Supports XML Schema; no validator in the world to date can validate an
XHTML Family.


> The parser used by XSV is some kind of weird semi-Closed Source thing. I
> dunno what the license terms are for the copy XSV uses, but I do know that
> you can't download it, you have to ask them nicely for an
> Educational/Research Licence. The W3C may be able to work out some form of
> licence with them, but I sure can't; at least not and redistribute derived
> works (i.e. a patch to the validator) afterwards.
Yes, that is very strange - W3C should be entirely open source, but I think
that it is being developed by the University of Edingbourough.

> It also comes with only experimental language bindings and only in Python
> (ye gods, but I *hate* Python!). The only thing that makes sense without
> some *major* restructuring (read: build from scratch) is something that
can
> be easily called from Perl (which the Validator is written in).
I can't write in Perl (well, only a little), but I encourage anyone that can
to help. I see what you mean about the cross over problems. It may be best
to start from scratch! I can only advise, I'm not all that up on Perl
unfortunately.

> >>>cf http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/extxhtml/,
> >>>   http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/exp/
> >>Yes, those both validate. Shouldn't they?
> >>Am I missing something really obvious here?
> >>Everyone off sniggering at me?
> >*snigger*
> Ah, I *knew* that wasn't just my rampant paranoia[1] talking! :-)

Heh, heh. I'm glad you got the joke.


> >you're not meant to validate them, you're supposed
> >to read them for more information! They will inform
> >you a bit about XML Schemas and XHTML Families (I hope).
>
> Ah! Right.
> Actually, I'd already read them. I was watching in fascinated horror as
the
> "comment" thread unfolded on www-html. Dan's comment-hack pages exposed
Yet
> Another XHTML Bug in the Validator (see [0]), but otherwise seemed to work
> fine. Those pages are actually one of my regression tests! :-)

"fascinated horror"????? Ys, it was a great conversation, wasn't it? I think
it affected a great many people. I think all of his has started to pave the
way for the public to use Modularization/XHTML Families/Modularization. In a
way this is the cutting edge of Internet technology we are discussing here,
but it's going to become harsh reality VERY soon. People are going to be
stuck when all of the recommendations come out! There needs to be a lot of
preparatory work done by poor fools such as we!

> I'll read up on this stuff and see if I can figure it out. No promises,
> though. :-)
I would be *very* grateful if you could. This has become a very intersting
project. For example, take another look at http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/exp/


> [0] - I'd planned to release something last weekend, and the
>       weekend before, but Real Life kept interfering. I'm
>       shooting for this weekend again, but it hinges on what
>       happens IRL and the turnaround-time for patches at the
>       W3C isn't exactly stellar. The good news is that I have
>       ";imgonly" support, as well as experimental support for
>       XML/text/etc. output, almost done. The infrastructure is
>       in place (barring the discovery of insurmountable hurtles)
>       so all that remains is the nitty details. The curious can
>       follow the sordid process in my Diary on Avogato
>       <URL:http://advogato.org/person/link/>.
I will have a look!

> [1] - In a past life I used to run Security in a 3.5K-user NT shop
>       (a regional hospital). It's not a question of whether you're
>       paranoid; it's a question of whether you're paranoid *enough*!
>       :-|
I fully agree.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2000 06:19:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:54 GMT