It is valid -- but, the creator of the XSD did not indicate that it was required -- and you have assumed that it is required. If your code cannot tolerate that -- then modify the XSD to make it required and have whoever produces the XML give it a default value....
However, this is simply pushing it off to the side. This is an issue that does not relate to XML per se -- it relates to best practices about defining and validating data.
The XSD defines the structure and rules of XML -- so the designer of the schema must describe the data perfectly and consumers must not make assumptions that are not supported by the XSD.
<list type="expl" margin="0">
(1) A person
is guilty of an offence if:
<list type="expl" margin="0">
person deals with money or other property; and
The output i need is like
<text>A person is guilty of an offence if:</text>
<text>the person deals with money or other property; and</text>
Effectively if List appears as consecutive siblings, and they are of different types (eg, (1)/(a)/(i)) they must be nested inside the previous list item.
This is not the document you want for figuring out CRUD. You need the XSD to do that properly. You could guess and as long as the database column names matched you *might* be able to guess correctly, but...I would not be helping you if I recommended that you do that.
If you can write your own query to select a row and if you also had access to ADO.NET -- you could have the table tell you its schema and then the query could be written properly.
This method that you are using -- is not a great idea -- you can have some success in doing it, but not for long and it is very likely that you will manage to put a row in the database that will be junk data because you do not know the schema -- you are just making blind CRUD operations.
A better choice might be stored procedures because you can just provide the parameters from the client side. At any rate, the less you count on being smart on the client side, the better off you will be.
i want to display some of the questions stored in an xml file on a listbox in wpf,only one questions should be displyed on listbox by using a button,it shows different questions each time whenever i press next button,please send me code for this
OK, I'd be first to post a link to Parsing Html The Cthulhu Way [^] if anyone suggests Regular Expressions, but I have a problem using an XmlDocument (and therefore XPath) with an HTML file I'm downloading.
The page is a list of files to download -- I need to extract the hrefs from the as, obviously I'd prefer to use XPath to do that.
0) The file doesn't contain an opening <HTML> tag (it does have a closing </HTML> tag ) -- I can tack one on, that's not a big deal.
1) It contains at least one entity (and possibly other entities) and the XmlDocument doesn't like that.
So I need options, people!
I can summon Cthulhu.
I can use Regular Expressions to replace any offending entities and then feed the result to an XmlDocument.
Oh, mighty Cthulhu! Wise and terrible! I ask your assistance as my days have been blighted with some gnarly HTML! Please, oh lord, come smite the bare buttocks of the wretch who hast wrought this travesty. I will repay you with a pint of bitter. Not a measly USian pint mind you, but a proper Britsh pint.
If I take data (1,2,3,a,b,c,..) and I put it in XML form
(<a>, <b>, <c>)
does that mean that data becomes information because of XML? Does XML turn data into information by representing it in tags?
I am also reading here in a slideshow: "In JDOM, every XML tree is approached as a document even though the content has nothing to do with documents". I looked up the definition of 'document' on dictionary.com and it states that a document is meant as being informative. 'informative' means 'to convey information'. Then, if the purpose of XML is to represent data into information, why does the content of an XML tree supposedly not have anything to do with a document and therefore nothing to do with information? This is confusing. Perhaps the author of that slideshow was using different semantics than I have in my mind right now.