Re: [xml] Schema validity failure for valid document

[Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik 4commerce de>]

Hi,

Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Kasimier Buchcik wrote:

[...]

> > What about the following:
> > 1. xmlRegExecErrInfo would return an array of automaton transition
> >  indices (well, if the transitions are accessible through an index).
> > 2. We could then iterate through all the given transitions and extract
> >   the info using accessor functions like:
> >   const xmlChar * xmlRegExecGetValue(int transitionId)
> >   void * xmlRegExecGetData(int transitionId)
>
>
>   Too complex. Depending on the compilation you may address transitions 
> with integers or with pointers. I don't think exposing that deep a level

I don't agree that it's too complex and exposing. If the atoms holding
the information would be always accessible through integer indices in
xmlregexp.c (and I think any struct can be put in an array and be given
an index), accessor functions would be the most encapsulating and
extensible access to those informations I can think of. Plus, access of
information items through integer indices is a highly abstract thingy.
So not exposing at all IMHO.

> is safe. Maybe we can give informations when building the automata,
> associating an error string to a transition (or a state) and providing
> back that optional error string from xmlRegExecErrInfo if reached. That

We are already associating the schema type to the transition. But
having an extra field as a marker per transition would be good.

> sounds way simpler to implement and use. When building those "dead" transition
> you know what they represent and what to report if transiting though them.

In this case yes, the negated namespace wildcard is the only one with a
dead-end; so it's distinguishable.

>   I still think detecting the dead state should be added, it doesn't have
> to show up in any API anyway.

OK.

Cheers,

Kasimier