[jdom-interest] Preparing JDOM 1.1.2 ?

[Rolf Lear]

On 25/08/2011 9:54 PM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> I don't have a github account but something is off here, and it may
> not be JDOM. Jason says:
>
> "I did a simple test and printed out what was being given to SAXHandler
> by the parser. Sure enough, on this document when validation is turn
> on, the SAX parser is reporting two attributes with the same qname
> (which happens to be the local name since they are both unprefix), but
> in different namespaces."
>
> That should *NOT* be happening. There is no such thing as an
> unprefixed attribute that is in a namespace. That simply does not
> exist in XML. If the parser is reporting such an attribute, the parser
> is *wrong*. If XML Schema can define an unprefixed attribute in a
> namespace, then XML Schema is *wrong*.
>

Hi Elliotte

I think everyone is in violent agreement here... it sucks, and it's 'wrong'.

XMLSchema should make it clear what should happen in this case, but XSD 
1.0 is 'clear' that it should do nothing, and XSD 1.1 has partial 
coverage of the issue... (or, if you interpret it in just the right way, 
it does cover it, and say the prefix should be generated by the parser).

Xerces (the parser) currently takes the XSD1.0 view, and claims that 
it's 'right' to not be prefixing the attributes.

JDOM is the victim (other than the end user like Thomas) because it is 
getting bad information, and then doing worse things with it.

Michael filed a 'ticket' against XMLSchema (1.1) to clarify/resolve it. 
You can see the discussion at:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13750

I filed a ticket against xerces at:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1524

Then there is the JDOM issue at:
https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/1

ahh, you found it.

Rolf