W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Unique and Substitution groups

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:24:11 +0100
To: <Bibhaker.Saran@txu.com.au>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040720232446.7C43DA066F@frink.w3.org>
I think most of the problems with the schema weren't that it was invalid,
merely that it was ineffective in enforcing the constraints you wanted to
enforce.
 
But in any case, the fact that a schema gets through XMLSpy is no proof that
it is valid.
 
Michael Kay


  _____  

From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Bibhaker.Saran@txu.com.au
Sent: 20 July 2004 23:57
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Unique and Substitution groups



Hi All, 
I was wondering, given the issues discussed in this thread,  why is it that
XMLSpy (2004 rel 3) successfully validates the schema and the document,
although it is set to use the MSXML by default? 

Regards 
Bibhakar Saran 


TXU - we're excited by gas and electricity. 

CAUTION

This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost because this email has
been sent to you by mistake. This email may contain personal information of
individuals, and be subject to Commonwealth and/or State privacy laws in
Australia. This email is also subject to copyright. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not read, print, store, copy, forward or use
this email for any reason, in accordance with privacy and copyright laws. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return
email, and delete this email from your inbox.
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2004 19:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:10 UTC