Re: [xml] strange xmllint behaviour

[Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik 4commerce de>]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 20:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> I'm trying to validate the following document:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/";>
> 	<wsdl:types>
> 	</wsdl:types>
> </wsdl:definitions>
> 
> against the wsdl schema (found at the expected url)
> 
> Somehow xmllint outputs this crazy validation error. It's so gross I
> fear I'm missing something obvious (verified on FC Devel & windows)

It's a bug and related to bug [1]. 

> [nim rousalka tmp]$ xmllint --debug --schema wsdl.xsd test.wsdl
> DOCUMENT
> version=1.0
> encoding=UTF-8
> URL=spp.wsdl
> standalone=true
>   ELEMENT wsdl:definitions
>     namespace wsdl href=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
>     TEXT
>       content=
>     ELEMENT wsdl:types
>       TEXT
>         content=
>     TEXT
>       content=
> spp.wsdl:3: element types: Schemas validity error : Element
> 'wsdl:types': This element is not expected. Expected is one of
> ( {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}documentation,
> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}import,
> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}types,
> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}message,
> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}portType,
> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}binding,
> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}service,
> {##other:http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/}* ).
> spp.wsdl fails to validate

The schema processor still has an issue with <any> wildcards with a
namespace value of "##other". 
I tried a workaround for the problem described in [1] but it's
apparently not working.

The instance is accepted if the workaround is removed; unfortunately
an instance like the following would be then accepted as well:

<wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/";>
	<wsdl:fds/>
</wsdl:definitions>

I.e. we are currently not able to restrict the namespaces to "##other".

I will remove the workaround if there are no objections, since it seems
to do more harm than good.

[1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172215

Regards,

Kasimier