Jacob Kjome wrote:
At 04:54 AM 1/24/2007, you wrote:
>Jacob Kjome wrote:
>>
>> I see your point. Even if the functionality was something you would
>> support, I'm not sure there's anyone willing to put in the time to
>> figure it out. But you never know. Like I said before, it could be an
At 04:54 AM 1/24/2007, you wrote:
>Jacob Kjome wrote:
>>
>> I see your point. Even if the functionality was something you would
>> support, I'm not sure there's anyone willing to put in the time to
>> figure it out. But you never know. Like I said before, it could be an
>> option. So, if someo
Jacob Kjome wrote:
I see your point. Even if the functionality was something you would
support, I'm not sure there's anyone willing to put in the time to
figure it out. But you never know. Like I said before, it could be an
option. So, if someone actually did the work, and it passed rigor
I see your point. Even if the functionality was something you would
support, I'm not sure there's anyone willing to put in the time to
figure it out. But you never know. Like I said before, it could be
an option. So, if someone actually did the work, and it passed
rigorous testing, the fu
Prashant wrote:
[Wild guess] I am not sure if the following Xerces Bug on attribute
order preservation is relevant here.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-863
-Prashant
Its effectively part of the XML spec. You cannot even guarantee that a
SAX parser will send you events in the
[Wild guess] I am not sure if the following Xerces Bug on attribute
order preservation is relevant here.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-863
-Prashant
Jacob Kjome wrote:
seems to have a problem with resolution of attributes within the
current element. It appears to resolve the
Jacob Kjome wrote:
At 05:22 PM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
>
>It's not a solvable problem. How do you resolve this:
>
>
>
I would argue that's not a relevant problem. First of all, no one would
write that because it is meaningless. Secondly, it might go like this...
1. parse 'a'
2. can'
Jacob Kjome wrote:
I think Brian is correct. XML attributes have no defined order other than the
obvious alphabetical order, which might be an implementation detail. Even so,
I wonder if logic could be written to maximize resolution. If a property is
found to not be resolved, it could be defer
At 05:22 PM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:13 PM
>> To: Ant Users List
>> Subject: Re: intra-element attribute property
>> resolution issue
>>
>&
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:13 PM
> To: Ant Users List
> Subject: Re: intra-element attribute property
> resolution issue
>
>
> I think Brian is correct. XML attributes have no defi
I think Brian is correct. XML attributes have no defined order other than the
obvious alphabetical order, which might be an implementation detail. Even so,
I wonder if logic could be written to maximize resolution. If a property is
found to not be resolved, it could be deferred until other attr
Brian Agnew wrote:
Hi -
I don't believe there's any concept of attribute ordering in XML (and
hence in any DOM implementation). See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/,
section 3.1
Brian
yeah, I'd turned to the w3c afterwards, and they dont specify any
particular order in things appearing. I d
Hi -
I don't believe there's any concept of attribute ordering in XML (and
hence in any DOM implementation). See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/,
section 3.1
Brian
Steve Loughran wrote:
Jacob,
I've been looking at teh xmlproperty source. The order the task works
through attrs is driven by t
Jacob,
I've been looking at teh xmlproperty source. The order the task works
through attrs is driven by the order it comes from the DOM in
node.getAttributes():
if (node.hasAttributes()) {
NamedNodeMap nodeAttributes = node.getAttributes();
// Is there an id at
Jacob Kjome wrote:
> At 06:19 AM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
> >Jacob Kjome wrote:
> >>
> >. Did I find yet another bug in Ant-related software or
> >> am I missing something???
> >
> >http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41398
> >and
> >http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
At 06:19 AM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
>Jacob Kjome wrote:
>>
>. Did I find yet another bug in Ant-related software or
>> am I missing something???
>
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41398
>and
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41400
>
Thanks for confirming the issu
Jacob Kjome wrote:
. Did I find yet another bug in Ant-related software or
am I missing something???
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41398
and
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41400
-
To
Jacob Kjome wrote:
Hmm... Antunit seems to be giving me bogus results. It should fail, but
it doesn't. Try the following build file. First try running the
default target, "main", under either Ant-1.6.5 or Ant-1.7.0. Notice
that the property for ${app.m} remains unresolved and ends up as t
Hmm... Antunit seems to be giving me bogus results. It should fail,
but it doesn't. Try the following build file. First try running the
default target, "main", under either Ant-1.6.5 or Ant-1.7.0. Notice
that the property for ${app.m} remains unresolved and ends up as the
literal value "$
Quoting Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jacob Kjome wrote:
> > Quoting Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > No, I get the same behavior in Ant-1.6.5. I think this is a longstanding
> issue.
>
> uh oh. those are bad. Theres more of a risk that someone has been
> depending on it.
>
Jacob Kjome wrote:
Quoting Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No, I get the same behavior in Ant-1.6.5. I think this is a longstanding issue.
uh oh. those are bad. Theres more of a risk that someone has been
depending on it.
have a look at the source and see if you can find a proble
Quoting Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jacob Kjome wrote:
> >
> > seems to have a problem with resolution of attributes within
> the
> > current element. It appears to resolve the attributes in alphabetical
> order.
> > If an attribute refers to the value of another attribute in the same
Jacob Kjome wrote:
seems to have a problem with resolution of attributes within the
current element. It appears to resolve the attributes in alphabetical order.
If an attribute refers to the value of another attribute in the same element,
the one doing the referring must come later in the al
seems to have a problem with resolution of attributes within the
current element. It appears to resolve the attributes in alphabetical order.
If an attribute refers to the value of another attribute in the same element,
the one doing the referring must come later in the alphabet, otherwise the
24 matches
Mail list logo