Regarding a new Xerces release, I think we'd certainly like to see one happen, but it needs volunteers to help drive it.
Thanks. Michael Glavassevich XML Technologies and WAS Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: mrgla...@ca.ibm.com E-mail: mrgla...@apache.org David Costanzo <david_costa...@yahoo.com> wrote on 06/10/2016 04:07:52 PM: > > Thanks Mukul, I'll open a JIRA ticket as you suggest. > > As I went to open the ticket in JIRA, I found that Mukul Gandhi > already fixed it. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1591 > > Thank you, Mukul! > > The fix was made in the xml-schema-1.1-dev branch that has not been > merged into trunk, which is why I could still reproduce the problem > on the latest code and in the latest release. In looking at the > release velocity, I see that the fix was made four years ago, Oct > 2012 (just hours after it was reported!), the last Xerces release > was made in Nov 2010, and the version which a recent HotSpot JVM (1. > 8.0_71) uses is Xerces 2.7.1, released in July 2005. > > So if I want the fix for my program, is my best bet to use a private > build from a development branch? Are there any plans for another > Xerces release? > > By the way, once a minimal repro scenario is constructed, this looks > like an esoteric problem on the fringes of the XML standards, but > this bug does have a practical, real-world impact. In the world of > clinical research which includes testing new medicines, there's a > standards body called CDISC. CDISC defines an XML standard for > interchange of clinical data called ODM and states that a computing > system that processes ODM can only claim conformance if it obeys > several rules, one of which is "ODM files must validate against the > ODM schema for the ODM version indicated in the ODM root element". > My project manager has interpreted this as a requirement to validate > all ODM documents. > > The ODM standard allows for "vendor extensions" and requires that > they be implemented in a separate namespace. The extensions are > added by redefining special "extension groups" which the ODM base > standard defines for exactly this purpose. > > So to qualify as a "conforming system", my code must validate > documents according to a schema that a vendor provides me. The ODM > base standard has a top-level .XSD file that uses an xs:include and > the vendor extensions are expected to use a xs:redefine of that. > Because of this bug, Xerces 2.11.0 cannot validate ODM against a > vendor's extension. I can make some simple changes to the vendor > schema so that Xerces can validate with it, but then that casts > doubt on whether it's really validating with the vendor extensions. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org
