• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:39:48 -0500
• In-reply-to: <40675E6E.5060008@o...>
• References: <00b801c414e6$e23ba5d0$0200a8c0@m060305y> <40675E6E.5060008@o...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)

Bob Foster wrote:

> I can't recommend trying out a bunch of invalid URI specifications on 
> the theory the parser may be buggy. 
> 

Ordinarily I wouldn't either, but I have had too much sad experience 
relative to the file: scheme.  Anyway, the OP's problem is probably that 
his path is really a relative path - I think we both see that as by far 
the most likely thing.

I have seen an xml schema validator fail to validate because "file:///" 
was omitted from an absolute path for the schema location - and it 
should fail, IMHO - and another succeed with the same URI.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
    • From: richard@c... (Richard Tobin)

• References:
  • Document is invalid: no grammar found
    • From: "Jose Airton" <jairtonf@y...>
  • Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
• Next by Date: Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
• Previous by thread: Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
• Next by thread: Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread