"jayachandra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > Sanjiva, we do have issues with OM as well. > -->To start with, > OM lacks PI, comments and DTD support. On my end, Iadded their > implementation into OM code base and then ran the test.
These are not problems IMO :-). SOAP doesn't require them. So I have no problem with us not being able to handle docs that have stuff we know we won't get in the SOAP world. > -->A default namespace for 'xml' prefix is supposed to be in > the scopeof every XML element. I did a work around on my machine > as todeclaring this namespace inside the OMElementImpl constructor > methodsitself, before running the tests. ??? I have no idea what you're saying .. XML 1.0 has no concept of namespaces! XML 1.0 *+* Namespaces does but not the base XML spec. > -->The 'baseURI' property support is not provided by OM > insideOMElement. If we can keep track of this one thing in OM > it can help usreduce the number of parsed tests that fail at > comparison phase by agood number (a few fifties). Hmmm. I am not certain but it seems to me that XML Base was a thing that built on namespaces? Alek you must know the definitive answer (or I guess I could check but .. ;-)). > However, getting a 100% success is unlikely without *full* > DTDimplementation built into OM. Alek was saying DTD support > is not thatwell implemented in stAX, it seems, and if that > be the need hesuggested to use woodstox. Again doesn't bother me at all; YAGNI for SOAP. > And Sanjiva, just to be extra cautious that I don't give > out wrongsignals :-)... so far I tested OM against *only* > valid XMLs of 1.0version that should be parsed and serialized > using any infosetimplementation. We haven't tested OM against > how well it can _reject_invalid and ill-formed XMLs. They > actually form the larger fraction ofthe XMLsuite about 1800 :-( Ah ok - yes we do care about failing on the bad ones! > Thanks for all your supportByeJaya Most welcome! Sanjiva.
