Re: Bug parsing xhtml-strict schema

[michael sorens]

OK--I stored a local copy of xhtml-strict.xsd, made the update, modified  
my files to refer to the local copy, and then xerces proceeds without  
complaint. That's what I needed--thanks.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:37:39 -0400, Michael Glavassevich  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Michael,
I'm not aware of any patch. With Xerces 2.6.2, you'd have to modify the
schema file. Try replacing instances of [-+] in patterns with [+\-]. We  
do
track schema errata, so if this portion of E2-18 is indeed rescinded it
will undoubtedly be addressed in some future release, allowing validation
with the original xhtml-strict schema again.

Thanks.
"michael sorens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2004 04:04:23 PM:
I still need some clarification/assistance, please. I'm a *casual* user
of
xerces. I'm trying to do a simple validation of a bunch of files with
xhtml-strict.xsd, and xerces 2.6.2 spews a couple errors on the regexps
for each file. Is there a patch to the xhtml-strict.xsd file? Or is
there
a patch to the xerces 2.6.2 release? What is the simplest approach to
getting around this issue?
Thanks.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:36:20 -0700, Bob Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it's time to unimplement it. I've been informed by Steve
> Sperberg-McQueen that a portion of that errata resolution has been
> rewritten so as to allow the usage in xhtml1-strict (and many other
> published schemas).
>
> Bob Foster
>
> Michael Glavassevich wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>>
>> This erratum [1] has been implemented in Xerces. That particular
>> version of the xhtml1-strict schema is in error if it contains [-+]
in
>> the value of a pattern facet.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-errata#E2-18
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, michael sorens wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I ran into precisely the same problem with xhtml1-strict with Xerces

>>> 2.6.2. I reviewed the errata you indicated--does that mean there is
a
>>> patch available for Xerces 2.6.2, or that it will be in a future
>>> version? What does a casual user do today to get around this bug?
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> Michael Glavassevich
>> XML Parser Development
>> IBM Toronto Lab
>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]