5 Comments

1. hAl September 29, 2007 @ 1:03 pm

   Fluff, Dupe of JP 02
   Making nice to Japen by Ecma ??
   A criterium should be that XML conforms to its standard and not that XML cannot be handled by a certain validator.

2. Steve Loughran December 3, 2007 @ 9:34 pm

   Its wrong to be dismissive of the main Java XML parser if it can’t handle XSD; it is either a sign of inadequate XSD specifications (there are differences between MSXML and Xerces about whether ##local is in the ##other xmlns for example), or it is inadequate testing.

   There is no reason why the dev team could not have attempted to feed their documents and schemas through a copy of Xerces. This is called ‘test driven standards’ and we need to see more of these.

   A failure by the standards body to produce a format that can be validated by multiple parsers is a failure to produce a usable format.

3. Alan Bell December 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm

   this needs a bit more research so I am going to untag it as fluff and tag it as needs further review. We need someone who knows their stuff to firstly reproduce the problem by feeding one of these schema files from part 4 into a few parsers and confirm they fail. Secondly we need to figure out if that is a bug in the parser, or a bug in the schema. Probably the best way to do this is to file a bug (after usual due diligence searches for existing bugs etc) at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ and see what they say about it.

4. Alan Bell December 3, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

   oops, this one is tagged as a dupe and the hasdupes issue JP-02 is already tagged as needs further review. Maybe I will swap them over as this issue has a more detailed discussion on it.

5. Steve Loughran December 3, 2007 @ 11:29 pm

   GB - 621 is a duplicate of this; they propose a solution by unifiying all imports.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.