Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Provide a means to set a dtd via ValidationSet publicId or systemId #48

Open
rosslamont opened this issue Apr 17, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@rosslamont
Copy link
Contributor

In release 1.0.1, setting these was silently ignored (which was itself technically a bug - see issue #46 for some background). In release 1.0.2 these cause an error because the default schema language is XSD.

Unfortunately its not possible at this time to apply a DTD to an arbitrary XML document as JAXP doesn't provide a means to do this. Research is been done on this as part of Java XML Validation Collection

@jochenw
Copy link
Member

jochenw commented Apr 18, 2018

I think, this issues scope is too far. My suggestion would be, like follows:

  1. As an alternative to publicId, and systemId, provide a boolean attribute "usingDtd".
  2. If this attribute is true, then turn "validating" on upon creation of the XML parser. As a side effect, this enforces presence of a DTD declaration, but I think we can live with that.

@rosslamont
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi Jochen,

Regarding the scope, I put this in as a place holder for later work, I've updated the issue to mark it as an enhancement request and I'm not putting a milestone against it until I do further work on my own validation projects. So its more of a long term aspiration.

Regarding your points 1 and 2, I think the plugin already does these. As I understand it and as discussed in issue #46, the "validating" boolean works the same as your suggested "usingDtd". Issue #47 talks about improving the documentation to make this more clear.

@jochenw
Copy link
Member

jochenw commented Feb 17, 2021

Ross, this is almost two years old. Do you still see an issue here?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants