Re: XSD Interoperability Grade

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Mark R Maxey wrote:

> Thank you for your work.  You've done a great job at identifying and
> categorizing schema patterns.  I'm having problems understanding the
> categories, though.
>
> Each pattern falls into a binary "basic" or "advance" category.  The
> "advance" category includes both widely used patterns, patterns that no
> one supports (e.g., AnyURIEnumerationType01 [advanced]), and patterns
> everyone supports (e.g., DecimalElement01 [advanced]).  Some patterns with
> identical support across vendors fall into different categories, e.g.,
> AttributeOptional01 [basic] & AttributeFixed01 [advanced].

The tradeoff was to have in Basic all the needed patterns that were 
reasonably implemented, and the core patterns used to define the 
'advanced' ones (that are more experimental in their support or in their 
reliance on other patterns)

> I would like to use your work to evaluate and refactor WSDLs & XSDs to
> maximize interoperability.  Given the current output, though, I don't
> think I could use it for that purpose.  What would be ideal for me is to
> be able to run a XSLT that would provide me feedback on which tools don't
> support a WSDL or XSD and a grade for each pattern found describing its
> interoperability.

We have an XSLT to identify patterns, see 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/detector/test.html

> Have you considered anything like this?  Are there any plans to refresh
> the results every year or two based on bug fixes to the various products?

Unfortunately the Working Group in charge of this work closed, so we 
currently can't foresee any update to this work, but other reports based 
on our work can be done independently, as all the code needed is 
available.
Cheers,

  >
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Maxey

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 20:42:56 UTC