- 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