|
Re: The xml editor recognizes a single an end tag as valid xml [message #66890 is a reply to message #66568] |
Fri, 21 January 2005 04:46 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Solstice/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Solstice/images/down.png) |
David Williams![Friend of Eclipse Friend](/donate/web-api/friends_decorator.php?email=david_williams%40acm.org) Messages: 722 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:32 +0100, Raphael A. Bauer <raphael.bauer@temis-group.com> wrote:
>
> Is that issue known to anybody?
>
Nope, not known. (But not too surprising, given our "fault tolerant parser" actually creates an element in taht case). We are hoping to improve much of that type of validation in future milestones. But I'll suggest you take one of two actions ... if its from a "real life" case that caused you some greif, please open a bugzilla, and we can try and be sure that case is handled better in future milestones (attaching example files, exact scenerios, or outright JUnit tests are always appreciated). Alternatively, if this was just an "oddity" you noticed, you might wait until validation is re-vamped and try it again.
|
|
|
Re: The xml editor recognizes a single an end tag as valid xml [message #66911 is a reply to message #66890] |
Fri, 21 January 2005 09:53 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Solstice/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Solstice/images/down.png) |
Raphael A. Bauer![Friend of Eclipse Friend](/donate/web-api/friends_decorator.php?email=raphael.bauer%40temis-group.com) Messages: 47 Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
David Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:32 +0100, Raphael A. Bauer
> <raphael.bauer@temis-group.com> wrote:
>> Is that issue known to anybody?
> Nope, not known. (But not too surprising, given our "fault tolerant
> parser" actually creates an element in taht case). We are hoping to
> improve much of that type of validation in future milestones. But I'll
> suggest you take one of two actions ... if its from a "real life" case
> that caused you some greif, please open a bugzilla, and we can try and
> be sure that case is handled better in future milestones (attaching
> example files, exact scenerios, or outright JUnit tests are always
> appreciated). Alternatively, if this was just an "oddity" you noticed,
> you might wait until validation is re-vamped and try it again.
I just digged a bit deeper and unfortunately I discovered some other
strange xsd validation behaviours...
I'll investigate these things in detail, and post them with examples to
the newsgroup within the next 2 weeks, so you can decide what's a
bugzilla thing and what not...
thanks,
Raphael
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02982 seconds