Chris,
Thank you, that makes sense. I was using xmllint, and I will have a
look at the website you mentioned. xmllint doesn't give line numbers
after 63555 or something, so I finally figured out how to validate with
jEdit to find out where the errors were. There was no problem with the
foreign element there, so I thought maybe it was xmllint.
Daniel
Chris Little wrote:
Daniel Owens wrote:
I am working on usfm2osis.pl still, and I am trying to validate the
output. The foreign element is giving me problems.
vbu26.out.xml:65535: element foreign: Schemas validity error : Element
'{http://www.bibletechnologies.net/2003/OSIS/namespace}foreign',
attribute '{http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace}lang': 'arc' is not a
valid value of the local union type.
This is the text it hiccups on: <foreign xml:lang="arc">Ê‑li, Ê‑li,
lam-ma-sa-bách-ta-ni?</foreign>.
That's straight from the OSIS™ 2.1.1 User's Manual (draft). Am I missing
something?
Are you using libxml2 (e.g. xmllint) for validation? I've seen this
error pop up for values that are very clearly correct when validating
with xmllint. The same markup validates perfectly fine using Xerces.
There may be a minor problem, I believe, in that we're in something of a
transition period, when it comes to language tags. xml:lang is defined
as employing RFC 3066 "or its successor". The best current practice that
defines which RFC should be used for language tags is BCP 47, which
currently points to RFCs 4646 & 4647. RFC 4646 still identifies ISO
639-1 and -2/T as its authoritative sources for ISO 639 language codes,
though it makes certain provisions for the future integration of ISO
639-3 (and later). However, RFC 4646 also establishes a language subtag
registry, to be maintained by IANA, which does incorporate ISO 639-3 codes.
Validation _should_ now make reference to that actual IANA language
subtag registry, which exists here:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry.
However, given how many links in the chain have been updated in the last
couple years, it's quite possible that some validators haven't properly
updated to RFC 4646 or haven't grabbed the latest data from the registry.
That said, there should still be no problem with "arc" because it was
defined as part of ISO 639-2/T and was valid in RFC 3066.
In short: Ignore your validator. It's wrong.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
--
PMBX license 1502
|
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
