J Hendrich wrote:
> > > I guess that I might not actually need a schema for the manifest files
> > > since I am making a GUI to allow others to easily edit the manifest
> > > file without needing to know all of the rules that I have or even XML.
> > > Even if they did know XML, I am not currently validating it in the
> > > updater using XML Schema, but rather by manually checking values.
> > >
> > > I could make a change to the updater to force validation against a
> > > schema, but I don't know if MSXML4 supports this, or how to access it
> > > through VB6.  Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Do you think that a schema would actually be useful in this case?
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
>
> If you're only using the schema to validate that your code produces a valid
> manifest file (based on the user's input to your gui) that's still useful
> (IMHO).  You don't have to put it in your application's logic to validate
> every file since the creation of the manifest file is under your
> control...but if you do have it there, you might look at it like having
> test/debug code to catch errors early on.

Part of the reason that I want to build validation logic into the
updater client is that I am making a quick and dirty GUI for editing
the manifest since I have four projects going and have to have them
finished by the end of June and this one is of lower priority.  (That's
the problem with managers that don't understand that it is a waste of
the their and the devs' time to have to manually install every update
every time that a breeakage is encountered, which is often in this
beta-testing phase.)  If I knew that I would have a decent amount of
time to work on the editor, I might forgo the schema.

As for splitting the node type, I considered it, but I don't want to
make the dialect more complicated than it needs to be :) (oops!).  I
guess that splitting the node type might simplify the dialect, but I
don't have enough experience to really know.

Chris