have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
FYI,
Hi, Everyone,
Kent Tamura who is owner of XML Security Suite is my colleague.
He says that the DOM Level1 code remains in XSS4J.
He will fix the co
@IBMJP, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@us.ibm.com on 2001/09/28 16:23
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
Well, the problem is that I don't have control over the code using
ing message (via log4j in Axis, via System.err.println() in SOAP 2.2) and
then do the lenient thing.
Indeed, guys, some good discussion here!
--Glen
- Original Message -
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001
e peace.
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
There is a problem there:
will that get recognized correctly with your ha
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
There is a problem there:
will that get recognized correctly with your hack?
What about:
(I'm not sure about this one.)
Will it also not have the unintended side-effect of eliminating
redund
, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Bug with DOM2Writer
I must say that I am enjoying this thread immensely. :-) But I have a
> A plea for sanity here: my own personal belief is that the correct
behavior
> of code when receiving invalid input is undefined. So, let me turn the
> question around: why is the current behavior which produces not well
formed
> output preferred over one that does?
My opinion only: Because it
hat's already the case ..
Sanjiva.
- Original Message -
From: "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
> My change is checking to see if the attribute name starts
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:51 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
> >
> >
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > >
> > > Sam, in general I don't support the principle of becoming bug
> > > compatible.
D]
> Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
>
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >
> > Sam, in general I don't support the principle of becoming bug
> > compatible.
>
> Oh, joy. A principles vs. pragmatism argument.
>
> A plea for sanity here: my own per
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> Sam, in general I don't support the principle of becoming bug
> compatible.
Oh, joy. A principles vs. pragmatism argument.
A plea for sanity here: my own personal belief is that the correct behavior
of code when receiving invalid input is undefined. So, let me tu
the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
> James M Snell wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing in my proposed set of change
M - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace.
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Wri
have peace.
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Duftler/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Sam
Ruby/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
I wa
> James M Snell wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing in my proposed set of changes that would violate rule
> #1.
>
> OK, then Sanjiva, what is your objection?
>
> - Sam Ruby
I'd like a bit of evidence beyond a declaration: James, why do you
think that your changes would not make a valid DOM produce
I was just noticing something in James' original note:
> Example, let's say I want to create the following XML output:
>
> test.setPrefix("s");
> test.setAttribute("xmlns:s", "testing");
> Element hello = doc.createElementNS("testing", "hello");
> test.appendChild(hello);
> doc.appendChild(test
James M Snell wrote:
>
> There is nothing in my proposed set of changes that would violate rule
#1.
OK, then Sanjiva, what is your objection?
- Sam Ruby
>Let me see if I can find some areas where there is likely some agreement:
>
>1) DOM2Writer must always correctly process any well formed as XML as
>input.
>
>2) It appears to be possible to produce invalid XML using the DOM APIs.
>
>3) DOM2Writer should always produce well formed XML as output
>
have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Bug with DOM2Writer
Hi James,
I imagine that to have bugs fixed in product XYZ, you follow product XYZ's
procedure for having bugs fixed. For instance, our
peace.
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
> If the change is not made, we run the risk of having code that currently
&
2001 11:50 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
>
>
> Matt,
>
> Yes, I am quite aware of this, but the already in production code that I
> cannot change does not live by these rules. And I know that there is
> lotsa other code out there that
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
>> But, if you still disagree, I recommend that we put it to a vote.
>
>Well, if it must, fine. I'm -1'ing it for sure.
>
>Also, I recommend that we only take votes from people who've been
>participating in the development say in the last 6 months. I know
>there are 10
Fresno/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
Hi James,
I agree with Sanjiva. The problem is the way you are using the DOM APIs.
To create a qualified element, the method is:
public Element cr
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:Re: Bug with DOM2Writer
Hi James,
I agree with Sanjiva. The problem is the way you are using the DOM APIs.
To create a qualified e
> If the change is not made, we run the risk of having code that currently
> works outside of Apache SOAP not work within Apache SOAP, which would be a
>
> very bad thing. What's the easiest thing to do? I'm sure providing a
First of all, if someone's using DOM2Writer from Apache SOAP then that
attribute with the namespace URI "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/";,
the prefix "xmlns", and the value "testing".
Thanks,
-Matt
> -Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 3:24 AM
> To: [EM
va
Weerawarana" To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Duftler/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Sam
cc:
te.
>
> - James Snell
> Software Engineer, Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
> James M Snell/Fresno/IBM - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace.
> In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
IBM
James M Snell/Fresno/IBM - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace.
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the
world.
- John 16:33
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthe
This is not a bug. So please do not commit this change!
The problem is that you're using the DOM APIs incorrectly.
If you start creating attributes that look like qualified names,
then you'll confuse the writer (and lots of other things). If you
want to create a namespaced attribute, then there's
30 matches
Mail list logo
