[eml-dev] [Bug 2704] New: - eml not valid is xmlSpy versions 2006+, eml-text and eml-documentation

[bugzilla-daemon@ecoinformatics.org]

http://bugzilla.ecoinformatics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2704

           Summary: eml not valid is xmlSpy versions 2006+, eml-text and
                    eml-documentation
           Product: EML
           Version: 2.0.1
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://sbc.lternet.edu/~mob/EML_bugs/20061215_xmlSpy_val
                    idation.txt
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: eml - general bugs
        AssignedTo: jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
        ReportedBy: mob at icess.ucsb.edu
         QAContact: eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
                CC: isangil at lternet.edu


This is NOT a duplicate of bug 2054. 

These changes are needed to make eml validate in xmlSpy2006+:
eml-text.xsd:
<xs:complexType name="TextType"> => add mixed="true"
and to the choice of this complexType add minOccurs="0"

eml-documentation.xsd:
add elementFormDefault="qualified" to the root-element

History:
Some folks who have newer versions of xmlSpy (2006, 2007) were not able to
validate eml documents. The failures are mysterious and variable. Validating
eml.xsd is successful, but when validating a data package, Spy replies that the
schema is invalid. It usually fails in eml-view, but also occasionally in
eml-project, or eml-software. 

Initially, Altova tech support said that it was a bug in Spy. They recently
changed their tune, and suggested the above changes to our schema. With these
changes, local copies of EML can now be validated in Spy2007. Altova did not
quote the parts of the xml specification relating to this error. Given the
error messages from Spy, I was not able to see where eml failed to comply with
the xml specs. I have put the email trail with error messages at the url above,
if that helps anyone else get to the bottom of this. 

It could be that this xmlSpy behavior is still a defect in the software, and
that eml schema is valid as is, and that tech support is just trying to shut me
up.

Relationships to other bugs:
1.  It's possible that this was part of the behavior that Inigo reported in bug
#2479, or described in emails to eml-dev.
2. This is not related to bug 2054, in which eml.xsd failed due to the <any>
element in additionalMetadata. That failure was noticed first in xmlSpy2005,
whereas this behavior first appeared with Spy2006.