W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Inconsistent Validation - mixed content and group

From: Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III <winchel@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 06:12:49 -0400
Message-ID: <02c401c206f9$68c612f0$c35c8990@wtviiilt02>
To: "Ian Stokes-Rees" <ijs@decisionsoft.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Ian:

Thank you for the reply.

> While I don't quite follow what purpose the group "g1" serves (it seems
> to me the schema would be identical with or without it, but perhaps your
> actual usage requires this kind of structure),


To create the schema I sent to the list, I whittled down a number of schema
that work together. For simplicity sake, what I sent to the list was the
smallest schema I could send that would validate/not-validate and show where
I was having a problem with the same construct I am currently using.


> the schema is perfectly
> fine and the instance document is schema valid.


This is very good to know. Thank you, I very much appreciate your effort.


 I have visually
> inspected this and made use of XercesJ to confirm.  You can use the
> online XercesJ schema validator available at:
>
> http://tools.decisionsoft.com/
>
> to check simple schema/instance pairs.


I'll check this as well.


>
> I would note that XSDL (and in fact any schema) will have limited
> use when you get into mixed content -- basically it is very difficult to
> sensibly validate the mixed content portions of an XML document.  If it
> is possible to avoid mixed content, then it is best to do so -- you can
> only expect useful schemas for regular structures or "leaf nodes" with
> well defined content.

I am one of those strange "document" people, so in some places mixed content
is essential.

Thanks again,

Todd
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 06:15:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:56 UTC