>It's a known issue
Good enough. Disappointing that so much overhead exists even when we're
just validating against DTDs, but I'll trust that you folks understand that
this is a major gating factor to acceptance of the parser...
>In your particular experiment, what parser features were enabled?
I start by creating an StandardParserConfiguration and wrapping a SAXParser
around that (since you folks don't allow us to retrieve the former from the
latter, and since I'm trying to use the same initialization to support both
XNI and SAX operations depending on which listeners I attach to what). Then
I tell the SAXParser to:
setFeature("http://xml.org/sax/features/validation",true);
setFeature("http://apache.org/xml/features/validation/dynamic",true);
setFeature("http://apache.org/xml/features/validation/schema",true);
Finally, I bind a listener to either the SAXParser (for SAX) or the
StandardParserConfiguration (for XNI).
I suspect that mixing the two levels quite this thoroughly is not what you
had in mind, but it seemed simplest -- especially given that I'm still
accessing Xalan2 via reflection and hence the initialization is a bit of a
pain to rewrite.
> suspect the recommendation will always be to turn off schema
> validation if you know your document doesn't need it.
Ugh. That's a real problem for those of us who are writing general-purpose
tools and don't know a priori which documents will or won't reference
schemas... and may not be able to count on the users telling us this via a
secondary channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
