classpathx-xml
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Classpathx-xml] Re: tests


From: Chris Burdess
Subject: [Classpathx-xml] Re: tests
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:52:54 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Musachy Barroso wrote:
Some of this SAX tests are driving me crazy..like this one, on this input:

<?xml version='1.0' standalone='yes'?>
    <!DOCTYPE attributes SYSTEM "../valid/sa.dtd" [
        <!--
            attribute needs defaulting
         -->
    ]>
<attributes/>
<?pi equals three?>

--------------------------------
and with this dtd:
--------------------------------

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!ELEMENT root (child|attributes)*>
    <!ELEMENT child (#PCDATA)>
    <!ELEMENT attributes EMPTY>
    <!ATTLIST attributes
        token           (a|b|c)         "a"
        notation        (nonce|foo|bar) #IMPLIED
        nmtoken         NMTOKEN         #IMPLIED
        nmtokens        NMTOKENS        #IMPLIED
        id              ID              #IMPLIED
        idref           IDREF           #IMPLIED
        idrefs          IDREFS          #IMPLIED
        entity          ENTITY          #IMPLIED
        entities        ENTITIES        #IMPLIED
        cdata           CDATA           #IMPLIED
        >


    <!ENTITY internal        " internal&number; ">
    <!ENTITY number  "42">

    <!NOTATION nonce SYSTEM "file:/dev/null">
    <!NOTATION foo   PUBLIC "-//public id//foo" "file:/dev/null">
    <!NOTATION bar   SYSTEM "file:/dev/tty">

    <!ENTITY unparsed-1 PUBLIC "-//some public//ID" "file:/dev/console"
                        NDATA nonce>
    <!ENTITY unparsed-2 SYSTEM "scheme://host/data"
                        NDATA foo>

the SAX test is expecting the parser to accept the xml file(!?), the
header of the test reads: " Tests the Standalone Document Declaration
VC, ensuring that attributes needing defaulting cause a validity
error."

The funny thing is that Aelfred was passing these tests, after "fixing
it" to comply to the spec now they are failing. If someone knows what
is going on here please advise.

Remember that the expected output is that provided by Xerces, and may therefore not be correct under all circumstances.

Have you contacted address@hidden - if not it might be an idea to do so. - -- Chris Burdess
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBEJXX6dl1DEqHgrgRAuOnAJ43P34M/r3G4dOtW03WKlL4N9A9kACeNPqr
bev8otQOtFrL9ccY/x0OGW0=
=L6wK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]