=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Antti Sissonen writes:

> I stumbled into some discrepancies in validation when defining the
> quite usual setup having a message inside an envelope. I created two
> versions of the combined xml message where the namespace declarations
> are a bit different from each other. Spy with external Xerces 2.6.2
> validates the both, but another setup using Apache parser does not
> accept the first option. How to interpret this and which of the
> alternatives is closer to the 'truth'?

Both versions are valid per XSV -- what error is what processor giving
you for which input?

ht
=2D -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@i...
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged sp=
am]
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFycl2kjnJixAXWBoRAl7EAJ9nG8H8oUAY+vAnSu20ER2SqvoZ9gCeI/o9
k8TR0n05lHY73Ql4xh6oUYM=
=oEh2
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From petexmldev@t... Wed Feb 07 13:13:47 2007
Received: f