Thanks Justin ...
> One of two things. Pass in a MLConfiguration(), which has the schema
> reference "built in" to it. Or ensure that teh schema reference is exactly
> correct in the instance document you are parsing.
I was trying to avoid that in order to show the difference adding
bindings make
Hey guys, sorry for the late response.
Jody Garnett wrote:
> On 29/09/2009, at 12:48 AM, Matthias Lendholt wrote:
>
>>> I see then I am confused ... let me check - adding a test method to
>>> ParserTest with the following "naked" configuration.
>>
>> Sorry! My fault. It was a misunderstanding on
On 29/09/2009, at 12:48 AM, Matthias Lendholt wrote:
>> I see then I am confused ... let me check - adding a test method to
>> ParserTest with the following "naked" configuration.
>
> Sorry! My fault. It was a misunderstanding on my side. I mixed up
> the Encoder in the background creating the
Jody Garnett schrieb:
>
>> No - that's not true :-)
>
> I see then I am confused ... let me check - adding a test method to
> ParserTest with the following "naked" configuration.
Sorry! My fault. It was a misunderstanding on my side. I mixed up the
Encoder in the background creating the WPS re
No - that's not true :-)I see then I am confused ... let me check - adding a test method to ParserTest with the following "naked" configuration. public void testNakedXMLParse() throws Exception { // set up a parser that only has the the xml schema bindings Parser parser = new Parse
