http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2226
--- Comment #12 from Rene Baumann <Rene.Baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-02-04 07:56:46 GMT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> >
> > First the not well-formed output should be fixed.
> > Otherwise it doesnt make sense to create a output with pdml.
>
> I'm not seeing this. I just attached the output I get from the attachment in
> 2185. Have you ever posted your capture so I can try it?
>
If you would have read comment #3 of me, you had seen, that I posted there a
not well-formed packet, where you can see the errors I was talking about.
Watch for my markings.
I got this output with the current release version of TShark (0.99.7).
I get your ouput you attached, when I use the newest release (0.99.8-SVN24239).
Thats what I'm using right now to eliminate the bug.
> > Then the best idea think is to define a DTD together. This DTD should show how
> > it works and gives a good fundament.
> > Then everbody knows how to work with the output correctly.
> > Especially I think of this specification:
> >
>
> We know what the violation is that is giving you trouble at the moment.
>
> I'm not sure how many people care about the integrity of generated PDML files,
> or at least we haven't heard from many. And I'm not convinced many people
> would want to compromise on the way the dissection tree looks in the GUI to
> give more pleasing PDML output.
>
> I'll try to find time to look at your capture, once you've posted it (the next
> few minutes would be ideal ;) ). After that, maybe we could consider whether
> we maybe a fake protocol wrapper around top-level fields might help.
Well... I think it would not change much, if you wrap around these lines with a
fake protocol.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.