On 2021-09-20 12:11:17 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:41:38AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > BTW, the error message should be more detailed, e.g. saying which
> > entity and which URI. This would have made debugging so much easier.
> > But that's a separate issue;
On 2021-09-20 17:50:56 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > > But if this upstream change affects DTDs that were once released, maybe
> > > it should accept, but ignore, this specific wrong redeclaration.
> >
> > Perhaps. This should probably be first talked with upstream.
>
> So indeed. Can one of
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> For the 1.1 DTD, w3c-dtd-xhtml 1.1-5 had the *upstream* file
> xhtml-1.1/basic/xhtml-special.ent with the buggy entity definitions
Hmm, now where did t̲h̲a̲t̲ come from?
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/xhtml11.tgz
has the flattened
On 2021-09-20 17:08:26 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > Then libxml2 can find the right file on the local file system via
> > catalogs. In my case (which is the *default* setup with Debian
>
> I never understood this catalogue thing. When I tried
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Then libxml2 can find the right file on the local file system via
> catalogs. In my case (which is the *default* setup with Debian
I never understood this catalogue thing. When I tried it, it didn’t
work for me (that may admittedly have been multiple
On 2021-09-20 15:57:35 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> So, if I understand correctly, this was a Debian-specific bug. I
> suspect that the incorrect XHTML 1.1 definitions were retrieved
> from the old w3c-dtd-xhtml source and shared for both XHTML 1.0
> and XHTML 1.1 DTDs. This would explain how
On 2021-09-20 03:18:46 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Hmm... there seems to be a subtle difference in xhtml-special.ent:
>
> With the file from w3c-dtd-xhtml:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But with the file from w3c-sgml-lib:
>
>
>
>
>
>
in August 2002.
On
On 2021-09-20 12:11:17 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:41:38AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Please also make sure that the NEWS file is up-to-date; see my other
> > message. This is also useful for the user when getting regressions
> > in general (possibly from bug
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:41:38AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Please also make sure that the NEWS file is up-to-date; see my other
> message. This is also useful for the user when getting regressions
> in general (possibly from bug fixes like here).
I'm not sure I'd like to add such item to
(We searched for the commmit at about the same time...)
On 2021-09-20 11:15:16 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I bisected libxml2:
[...]
FYI, I found this commit just by looking at the git logs, with a
search for "predefined" (and "redeclaration" works too). This is
faster than bisecting. This is
Concerning the change in the libxml2 code, I found this:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/commit/01411e7c5ea0fff181271e092f46a2138c3720ec
"Check for invalid redeclarations of predefined entities"
with the example of the incorrect
which was in the old libxml2 testcases, BTW.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 03:55:39AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 libxml2: XHTML 1.0 validation is broken with
> w3c-dtd-xhtml's xhtml-special.ent file
>
> This should be reproducible with w3c-dtd-xhtml's xhtml-special.ent file.
> The summary of the actual issue is below.
Control: retitle -1 libxml2: XHTML 1.0 validation is broken with
w3c-dtd-xhtml's xhtml-special.ent file
Control: tags -1 - unreproducible
This should be reproducible with w3c-dtd-xhtml's xhtml-special.ent file.
The summary of the actual issue is below.
On 2021-09-20 03:18:46 +0200, Vincent
On 2021-09-19 22:59:31 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 09:45:19PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2021-09-19 19:15:54 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > I can never manage to download DTDs from w3.org (how could you?!), so,
> > > taking your testcase and a copy of the
On 2021-09-19 22:33:09 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> It probably contains the ones for 1.0, but I found w3c-sgml-lib to
> not be sufficient in many ways and now use local files only…
which has always been the case, AFAIK. And the XHTML 1.0 related files
seem to be identical to the w3c-dtd-xhtml
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 09:45:19PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2021-09-19 19:15:54 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > I can never manage to download DTDs from w3.org (how could you?!), so,
> > taking your testcase and a copy of the same DTD:
>
> The DTD is provided by Debian, no need to
On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I can see that xhtml1-strict.dtd is provided by the w3c-dtd-xhtml
> package.
Not quite.
https://packages.qa.debian.org/w/w3c-dtd-xhtml/news/20160107T183823Z.html
--- Reason ---
RoQA; superseded by w3c-sgml-lib
On 2021-09-19 21:45:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2021-09-19 19:15:54 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > I can never manage to download DTDs from w3.org (how could you?!), so,
> > taking your testcase and a copy of the same DTD:
>
> The DTD is provided by Debian, no need to download it.
I
On 2021-09-19 19:15:54 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I can never manage to download DTDs from w3.org (how could you?!), so,
> taking your testcase and a copy of the same DTD:
The DTD is provided by Debian, no need to download it.
> mattia@warren /tmp/tmp/xml % l
> total 68
> -rw-r--r-- 1 mattia
Control: tag -1 unreproducible
On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 03:40:17AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> After the upgrade to 2.9.12+dfsg-3, XHTML 1.0 validation is broken.
> There was no such issue with 2.9.10+dfsg-6.7.
Actually, I can't reproduce it.
And, honestly, I think that if really didn't work
20 matches
Mail list logo
