Hi John, On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:47 PM JOHN Morris <j.morri...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what was happening before to give us those discrepancies > between our respective results though. Did you try comparing the files you > were using for the validations before with the new (but, from my point of > view, the same) files from the Jira case? > I've not been able to do, detailed comparison between the files posted by you within this mail thread and those attached on the Jira issue. I'd assume that they're same as claimed by you. But fetching your files from the Jira issue attachment, gives me same results that you've got (and I don't get same results by copying file contents from within the mail thread). For the purpose of making a possible fix to implementation as per the issue that we're discussing here, I'd suggest that we use the file attachment that you've provided within the Jira issue. I also suggest that, if you may reduce as much as possible the XML input file contents and also possibly remove most of the comments from the XSD document (and reattach the modified files on the Jira issue) that would be still ok for validation and replicates the same bug, I guess that'd be more easy for any Xerces-J developer to investigate the issue & possibly make a fix. > What can I expect to happen next? Is there some process where one of the > Xerces-J Developers (assuming that you are not already one of those) will > pick up this case? If so, how long does that process typically take, in > your experience? > As per my knowledge, the issue would be picked up (for analysis & a possible fix) by any Xerces-J developer depending who has available time (the Xerces-J developers are volunteers). > I wonder whether it would help my case, if you could add your supporting > information, that you had succeeded in replicating the problem, to the Jira > case itself? > I've made few comments on the Xerces-J Jira issue you've posted, some time ago. -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
