Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2226] Mismatching </proto> element in a PDML explort

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:57:51 +0000 (GMT)
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2226





--- Comment #19 from Rene Baumann <Rene.Baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-02-07 12:57:48 GMT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > 
> > I think the not well-formed xml is solved with the newer build versions.
> > There I havent found any problems with that.
> 
> That's not what you seemed to be saying earlier.  I was expecting you'd post
> your capture file showing a different problem...

The most important thing for me was to get a fix of the not well-formed pdml
files. They are fixed in one of the latest 0.99.8 versions of Wireshark.
It was important for me to make processing by an XML-Parser possible.
the next thing I have been interested in was the Validation of the PDML format
by the posted specification. 
My DTD was adapted to your specificaton of PDML, that it works. 

> > The only problem I have left is about the validation of this output format.
> > May be you will find a way (or not) of solving this problem.
> > I'm realizing that standards, that are created by somebody, will not be
> > transformed 1:1 in practice... ;-)
> > 
> 
> I checked in the fake-protocol-wrapper thing in revision 24281. It works for
> the files I've tried (TCP packets and the ARP item I mentioned).  I haven't
> tried validating it with the posted DTD file, but it looks OK in my editor and
> in Firefox.
> 
I will test it...

> Standards will only be maintained if someone uses and relies upon them.  Then
> they will notice when it breaks and report or fix it.
Well... thats the truth... :D

> 
> Hope this helps you.
> 
Thanks a lot...


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.