|
Hello, I've tried to validate the XML document defined in RFC 4479
section 7.1 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4479#section-7.1 ) with the
schema defined in section 5.1.2 (
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4479#section-5.1.2 ). This failed with the error: element presence: Schemas validity error : Element
'{urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf}presence': No matching global declaration available for the validation
root. I've thought that this happens because there is no
'presence' element defined in the above schema. So, I have tried to scan the
document and validate each element with the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model" namespace using the xmlSchemaValidateOneElement function.
But when I have called this function with the first
"dm:deviceID" element, the function failed with the same error message. I've tried to search the net for more information on
xmlSchemaValidateOneElement but I couldn't find too much. So, I had a look in the source
code of libxml 2.7.3 and I have noticed this strange thing in
xmlschemas.c: In function xmlSchemaValidateOneElement on line 28002 the
following attribution is made ctxt->validationRoot = elem; Then xmlSchemaVStart function is called. This function calls
the xmlSchemaVDocWalk function. xmlSchemaVDocWalk, on line 27723 overwrites the
validationRoot with the root of the document. 27716: valRoot = xmlDocGetRootElement(vctxt->doc); [...] 27723: vctxt->validationRoot = valRoot; So it seems that xmlSchemaValidateOneElement always
validates the root element of the document ( this means it validates the entire document ) I've tried to see if there is a path to call
xmlSchemaVDocWalk without initializing the validationRoot. I have found one more path through
xmlSchemaValidateDoc, but also, on line 28031 the validationRoot is initialized. The next thing that I have tried was to remove the
reinitialization of validationRoot from xmlSchemaVDocWalk on line 27723. After doing this, I
could succesifully validate the elements from
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model" namespace. Is this a bug, or an intended behaviour? Regards, Tiberius Duluman |