- From: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:50:38 +0200
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- CC: d_a_carver@yahoo.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Hi Mike, I do not see reportig the place of the error in the XML Schema spec and formulating a good error message as excluding each other. I agree that some parts of the specification are not easy to read, however this is not a subtitution of the error message, it is an enhancement to that. I find this useful especially when people say: well that schema engine reports that my schema is valid while Xerces[1] or oXygen reports this error. Pointing to the schema specification saves a lot of time as you have immediatelly access to the place in the specification that is related with the error. If it is difficult to read that it is a lot more difficult to take the whole schema specification and first look for the place related to the error and then read that. [1] oXygen uses currently Xerces 2.7.1 for validating XML schema files. In the next release we added the possibility to use most of the XML Schema processors: Saxon SA, XSV, MSXML 4.0 and .NET, LIBXML, IBM SQC. Best Regards, George -- George Cristian Bina <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger http://www.oxygenxml.com Michael Kay wrote: >>oXygen reports the error with a link to the specification >>related with that: >>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-nonambig > > > A tangential remark: I wonder how useful this is? I know Appendix C says > that validity errors "should" be reported citing the chapter and verse of > the spec, but is there really any serious prospect that the average schema > author will get any value from this? Your link points to the sentence: > > "A content model must be formed such that during .validation. of an element > information item sequence, the particle component contained directly, > indirectly or .implicitly. therein with which to attempt to .validate. each > item in the sequence in turn can be uniquely determined without examining > the content or attributes of that item, and without any information about > the items in the remainder of the sequence." > > I suspect most users can't even parse the syntax of this sentence, let alone > understand what it means. > > I decided in Saxon that there wasn't any point in referring people to the > spec, and instead try to explain what's wrong in my own words. In this case > you will get a message to the effect: "the content model is ambiguous, > <elementname> appears in more than one place". > > Any views on this from users? > > Michael Kay > http://www.saxonica.com/ > >
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:50:18 UTC