I can probably help here and there.

Gary

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Michael Glavassevich <mrgla...@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Reply via email to