Bernhard Jungk wrote:
> > At which side appears your problem? Is it at the point of
> > extracting partial xml content (sender), or at the other end
> > eliminating the transport envelope (receiver)?
>
> It appears on the receiver side. The receiver uses a dom tree, the
> sender works on its own custom tree and serializes parts of the tree
> to xml.
>
> > In any case, you use a sax parser (I guess, because the dom parser
> > would
> >
> > be overskill). But with a sax parser, it is easy to ignore the
> > specific
> >
> > validation error caused by the root tag (just plug in your own
> > error handler).
>
> I use the dom parser. The idea is to create the dom tree and then
> move the root node from the new dom tree to the existing one.
> This was the obvious way to me to do it, because I never used the sax
> parser. (It works for non-validated xml files, but this would allow
> the sender to insert invalid data into the tree.)
But in this scenario, you really should have a schema for the envelope,
that is your root tag, respectively. Why is it important to have
different envelope names which are not distinguished?
IMHO, the clean way is to define a schema for the transport envelope,
which may allow any-namespace elements, and use a unique tagname. Why
don't you like it?
Axel
--
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Institut für Informatik
Signalverarbeitung und Mustererkennung
Dipl.-Inf. Axel Weiß
Rudower Chaussee 25
12489 Berlin-Adlershof
+49-30-2093-3050
** www.freesp.de **
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
