Re: "Re: [xml] xmlSchema : enumeration and libxml"

[Jeremie Blanc-Tranchant inrialpes fr]

So, I am confused because my error doesn t come from by schema libxml 
management ; effectivly enumeration is well implemented in libxml. 
 
I doesn't know what I have changed but it is well working now : probably a 
syntax error in the schema or maybe in my XML file to validated. 
 
Thank at all! 
 
 
Jeremie 
 
 
> > On 24/05/04 13:12, Jeremie Blanc-Tranchant inrialpes fr wrote: 
> > > I have a problem to validated my xml document using enumeration tag 
in schema,  
> > > like :   
> > > <xsd:simpleType name="PossibleOneStepNSProblemValues">  
> > >    <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">  
> > >      <xsd:enumeration value="LCP"/>            
> > >      <xsd:enumeration value="QP"/>                                    
 
> > >      <xsd:enumeration value="Relay"/>                                                 
 
> > >    </xsd:restriction>  
> > > </xsd:simpleType>  
> > >   
> > > The error is the following :   
> > >   
> > > Schemas validity error : Failed to validate type with facet 
enumeration  
> > >   
> > > Moreover, I have got strange error : Unimplemented block at 
xmlschemas.c:5353  
>  Jeremie, 
> You haven't provided enough information to tell what is going on.  I 
> have a schema that  
> does what you seem to be doing, at it works.  The closest TODO line to 
> xmlschemas.c:5353 in 
> version 2.6.9 should not be triggered by the schema fragment you 
> provided above. 
> What version of libxml2 are you using? 
> Do you have a complete minimal schema and xml doc that recreates the 
> problem? 
> Without at least that information it's extremely difficult for anyone 
> to help you. 
 
> On someday, Igor Zlatkovic wrote: 
> > If you must use XML Schemas, then you must use a different parser 
which  
> > fully supports it. I recomend Apache Xerces. 
> What a load of crap.  I'm using xml schemas just fine.  There are 
> parts that aren't 
> implemented in libxml2 but that doesn't mean you MUST use a different 
> parser. 
> Taking a attitude like this means that no-one will ever bother to use 
> the xml schema 
> support, so the missing parts will never get done b/c no one is 
> interested.  That's 
> hardly a productive approach. 
 
> > Staying with libxml, you must use a different validation mechanism. I 
 
> > recomend RelaxNG. RelaxNG is far simpler than XML Schema and doesn't  
> > lack any significant part of its functionality. RelaxNG is the very  
> > reason why none of the developers here really need XML Schemas. 
>  sure, as long as your schemas don't need to interact with anyone 
> else, 
> who may or may not be able to use RelaxNG. 
 
> eric