← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
Probelm with the mailing list
Everytime i mail i get a message delivery failure message. Is this usual ?
A sample message i get is below.
Anishek
With reference to your message addressed to:
[email protected]
One or more addresses in your message have failed with the following responses from the mail transport system:
User <[email protected]> is not known at this site
Should you need assistance, please mail [email protected]
------------------- Returned message follows ----------------------
Received: from eureka.ballarat.edu.au ([141.132.64.2])
by augustus.ballarat.edu.au (1.04.89) with SMTP id 2112631750;A sample message i get is below.
Anishek
With reference to your message addressed to:
[email protected]
One or more addresses in your message have failed with the following responses from the mail transport system:
User <[email protected]> is not known at this site
Should you need assistance, please mail [email protected]
------------------- Returned message follows ----------------------
Received: from eureka.ballarat.edu.au ([141.132.64.2])
Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:21:20 +1000
by eureka.ballarat.edu.au (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id m769LG2X006303
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:21:16 +1000 (EST)
Received: from antispam.ballarat.edu.au ([141.132.64.7])
by tiberius.ballarat.edu.au (1.04.89) with SMTP id 2106550921;
Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:20:46 +1000
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0BACMMl0hCl+o+mWdsb2JhbACCIy6ObgEBAQEBCAUGCREFmgeEVA
by antispam.ballarat.edu.au with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2008 19:20:43 +1000
by ms01.oasis-open.org with esmtp id 1KQfC7-00021N-TC
for [email protected]; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:20:36 -0400
Received: (qmail 5907 invoked by uid 60909); 6 Aug 2008 09:20:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 5899 invoked by uid 0); 6 Aug 2008 09:20:24 -0000
bh=RnZkMpfxFKOH/84TEMjGZxO023im2+HIU3og5vC/7f8=;
b=KRIkX7MS6uLIm+2CY12eV+84HPYP0kMIPmETZ6oKbAGiIs2d/9TGdGS0BdCz2hK8dO
c/omyUoe5c7W+N39OlAzFYcB5rgLxNk7rjVy/Ltv/IcY4+RQOmgwDjLsvgdsNz3UD4M0
rqX4sK0iXm3WWyFnZF1pqr2F6NHEJCwrC0+dQ=
h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
:content-type:references;
b=P/F8BQthfv/EqsRzjPP5W7z9F+Yw5bbfZBWlV3Js/4/FTlrHRqoSMnyGZQ7+iQ2SXV
Uke9uqtZ1gvOOQ4VuFmLVnwxzAL+SQTUpbwg01AmsLd5HqtlWipfHh6qLFHs2WJKZNvR
G6mnaEelx67J4WGISs6kFRCo4hFPCXqX8Syxo=
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:50:21 +0530
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
------=_Part_1762_2080986.1218014421667
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting</a> the inner scope
definition overrides the parent one if the <a id="scoping" name="scoping">NSAttName is the same. In our case of the xml above it is the same as its the default namespace. So i dont see why the inner scope namespace declaration element be removed</a><a id="scoping" name="scoping"></a> and use the parent namespace. <br>
<br>
<br>Anishek<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Welch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> For better or worse, the digital signature mechanisms follow XML<br>
> Canonicalization by deciding that namespace prefixes are significant: see<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting</a><br>
><br>
> for discussion.<br>
<br>
</div>! That's good to know...<br>
<br>
I guess it all comes down the fact that the prefix isn't expanded to<br>
the URI.... which is the root cause of the problem of XPath requiring<br>
the prefixes to be mapped elsewhere.<br>
<br>
I guess there is an argument for dropping the URI altogether, and just<br>
using the prefix. Some things would get harder, but many more would<br>
get a lot easier.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Welch<br>
<a href="http://andrewjwelch.com" target="_blank">http://andrewjwelch.com</a><br>
Kernow: <a href="http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/" target="_blank">http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>
------=_Part_1762_2080986.1218014421667--
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,314,1215352800";
d="scan'208";a="16159436"by antispam.ballarat.edu.au with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2008 19:20:43 +1000
by ms01.oasis-open.org with esmtp id 1KQfC7-00021N-TC
for [email protected]; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:20:36 -0400
Received: (qmail 5907 invoked by uid 60909); 6 Aug 2008 09:20:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [email protected]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected]Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
Received: (qmail 5899 invoked by uid 0); 6 Aug 2008 09:20:24 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
bh=RnZkMpfxFKOH/84TEMjGZxO023im2+HIU3og5vC/7f8=;
b=KRIkX7MS6uLIm+2CY12eV+84HPYP0kMIPmETZ6oKbAGiIs2d/9TGdGS0BdCz2hK8dO
c/omyUoe5c7W+N39OlAzFYcB5rgLxNk7rjVy/Ltv/IcY4+RQOmgwDjLsvgdsNz3UD4M0
rqX4sK0iXm3WWyFnZF1pqr2F6NHEJCwrC0+dQ=
h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
:content-type:references;
b=P/F8BQthfv/EqsRzjPP5W7z9F+Yw5bbfZBWlV3Js/4/FTlrHRqoSMnyGZQ7+iQ2SXV
Uke9uqtZ1gvOOQ4VuFmLVnwxzAL+SQTUpbwg01AmsLd5HqtlWipfHh6qLFHs2WJKZNvR
G6mnaEelx67J4WGISs6kFRCo4hFPCXqX8Syxo=
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:50:21 +0530
From: "Anishek Agarwal" <[email protected]>
To: "Andrew Welch" <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_1762_2080986.1218014421667"Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
<[email protected]>
X-Antivirus-Scanner: ClamAV at OASIS detected no problems
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Level: --
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Level: --
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML Transformation
------=_Part_1762_2080986.1218014421667Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
- Show quoted text -
According to the xml specification though
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting the inner scope
definition overrides the parent one if the NSAttName is the same. In our
case of the xml above it is the same as its the default namespace. So i dont
see why the inner scope namespace declaration element be removed and use the
parent namespace.
Anishek
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Welch <[email protected]>wrote:
> > For better or worse, the digital signature mechanisms follow XML
> > Canonicalization by deciding that namespace prefixes are significant: see
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting
> >
> > for discussion.
>
> ! That's good to know...
>
> I guess it all comes down the fact that the prefix isn't expanded to
> the URI.... which is the root cause of the problem of XPath requiring
> the prefixes to be mapped elsewhere.
>
> I guess there is an argument for dropping the URI altogether, and just
> using the prefix. Some things would get harder, but many more would
> get a lot easier.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Welch
> http://andrewjwelch.com
> Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting the inner scope
definition overrides the parent one if the NSAttName is the same. In our
case of the xml above it is the same as its the default namespace. So i dont
see why the inner scope namespace declaration element be removed and use the
parent namespace.
Anishek
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Welch <[email protected]>wrote:
> > For better or worse, the digital signature mechanisms follow XML
> > Canonicalization by deciding that namespace prefixes are significant: see
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting
> >
> > for discussion.
>
> ! That's good to know...
>
> I guess it all comes down the fact that the prefix isn't expanded to
> the URI.... which is the root cause of the problem of XPath requiring
> the prefixes to be mapped elsewhere.
>
> I guess there is an argument for dropping the URI altogether, and just
> using the prefix. Some things would get harder, but many more would
> get a lot easier.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Welch
> http://andrewjwelch.com
> Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div dir="ltr">According to the xml specification thoughContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting</a> the inner scope
definition overrides the parent one if the <a id="scoping" name="scoping">NSAttName is the same. In our case of the xml above it is the same as its the default namespace. So i dont see why the inner scope namespace declaration element be removed</a><a id="scoping" name="scoping"></a> and use the parent namespace. <br>
<br>
<br>Anishek<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Welch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> For better or worse, the digital signature mechanisms follow XML<br>
> Canonicalization by deciding that namespace prefixes are significant: see<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting</a><br>
><br>
> for discussion.<br>
<br>
</div>! That's good to know...<br>
<br>
I guess it all comes down the fact that the prefix isn't expanded to<br>
the URI.... which is the root cause of the problem of XPath requiring<br>
the prefixes to be mapped elsewhere.<br>
<br>
I guess there is an argument for dropping the URI altogether, and just<br>
using the prefix. Some things would get harder, but many more would<br>
get a lot easier.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Welch<br>
<a href="http://andrewjwelch.com" target="_blank">http://andrewjwelch.com</a><br>
Kernow: <a href="http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/" target="_blank">http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>
------=_Part_1762_2080986.1218014421667--
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →