Unfortunately I deleted my example once I'd realised what the problem was. Like you I don't have time now, but will try to find time soon to redo it, and post an example.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday 07 October 2004 16:43 > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: versions 2.3 and 2.4 of web.xml > > > > Hi, > I didn't follow the thread on include-prelude (not my cup of tea). If > you can post a web.xml (or better yet, a simple WAR containing this > web.xml) that is invalid according to its own declared DTD and yet > Tomcat doesn't complain, that'd be great. I don't have time > to look at > this now, there are more important issues around, but maybe > eventually... ;) > > Yoav Shapira > Millennium Research Informatics > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Steve Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:27 AM > >To: 'Tomcat Users List' > >Subject: RE: versions 2.3 and 2.4 of web.xml > > > > > >Yoav, I see your point in your previousu post on this thread > re 2.3 DTD > >still being valid. However what do you think regarding the > possible bug > >mentioned in my later post below? (i.e. that a 2.4 feature used in a > 2.3 > >file does not cause an exception, but instead is silently ignored). > The > >validation that tomcat does on web.xml is usually very thorough, so > this > >case seems to be a bit of an anomaly. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Steve Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday 30 September 2004 18:03 > >> To: 'Tomcat Users List' > >> Subject: RE: versions 2.3 and 2.4 of web.xml > >> > >> > >> > >> Further to my note below, plus my previous posts on "Who has got > >> <include-prelude> to work?", I think I might have stumbled > across the > >> answers to both myself. > >> > >> Basically my web.xml files were based on the v2.3 files that > >> shipped with > >> the standard installation, and using these seems to have > >> silently suppressed > >> the 2.4 features, including <include-prelude>. > >> > >> Not sure if this is a bug - if web.xml encounters a tag which > >> it knows is > >> valid in its current version, but not in the earlier version > >> declared in the > >> <web-app> tag, should an exception be thrown, or should it > >> silently ignore > >> it? > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Steve Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: Thursday 30 September 2004 17:32 > >> > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > >> > Subject: versions 2.3 and 2.4 of web.xml > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Only just noticed this, looks like a possible bug, but > >> maybe there's a > >> > reason behind it? > >> > > >> > Basically, the default web.xml files included within the > >> > standard webapps of > >> > 5.0.27 and 5.0.28 seem to be a mix of webapp v2.3 and v2.4 - > >> > anyone know if > >> > there is a reason for this, or is this a bug? > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential > business communication, and may contain information that is > confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is > intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, > and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by > anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, > please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer > system and notify the sender. Thank you. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
