David Bertoni wrote: > > There may be differences in how the two parsers build a schema from the > constituent parts. The schema recommendation is a little loose in this > area, so there can be inconsistencies. > > It sounds like Xerces-C is unable to find the definitions for part(s) of > the schema. The likely cause is the limitation that single top-level > schema document must include all of the other components for the target > namespace URI. >
Yes, Xerces-C can't find the definitions but they are out there in the schemas. I mean I checked the error saying some element can't be found and I went and found that element defined somewhere. And the problematic schema did include/import the right schema. I could also see calls to resolveEntity resolving the "missing" schema. So if I understand you correctly in the situation I described with the docx schemas I should create the in-memory schema that includes all others per namespace? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/setExternalSchemaLocation-and-xs%3Aimport-tp15532404p15843769.html Sent from the Xerces - C - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
