Both FlexBuilder and mxmlc/compc catch MXML errors at compilation time, but they don't use an XML schema to do so. - Gordon
________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of neilac3333 Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: MXML Schema Thanks for letting me know, Gordon. I can certainly understand how complex such a schema would be, but then how does a tool, FlexBuilder or anything else, know that an MXML file is valid at design time? Or must I wait until runtime to find errors? Or simply write the UI in ActionScript? Neil --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gordon Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We no longer provide a schema for MXML. The language was designed to be > easily written by a human and isn't well-suited to being described in a > schema -- it's too loosy-goosy in terms of what can nest inside what, > whether you write a property as an attribute or child tag, etc.The > schema we offered for Flex 1.5 was so large it didn't perform well and > it was pretty much unmaintainable and inextensible so with Flex 2.0 we > stopped providing one. > > - Gordon > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of neilac3333 > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:38 AM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] MXML Schema > > > > I am new to Flex and looking for the XML Schema document that defines > the structure of an MXML document. I have found a schema at the > following URL: > > http://falkensweb.com/mxml2.xsd <http://falkensweb.com/mxml2.xsd> <http://falkensweb.com/mxml2.xsd <http://falkensweb.com/mxml2.xsd> > > > However, according to XMLSpy, this schema is not well-formed and > therefore not valid. Can you please point me to where Adobe has posted > the correct schema? > > Thanks very much. >
