Okay,
I tried the same and ditto!
There is nothing under some of the child nodes.
I guess somebody goofed up.
Next step would be Tech support I guess?
Good Luck!
Hi VR - Thanks for that dude :-). I have a request open,
but I’ve lost two days development time already (who’d have
thought it would be so difficult to import in a DTD! ).
I had some success with an alternative approach. I looked at
the cXML DTD and found the “no *body” problem occured for
elements with DTD type set to ‘ANY’. It looks like WM
decided to map the ‘ANY’ DTD type to the ‘empty record’ type
on WM platforms. It kind of makes sense, except that it
doesn’t – you can’t do anything useful an WM empty record
you can’t map to it, you can’t map from it. Makes you
wonder, eh?
Anyway, so I modified the cXML DTD itself [ A big thanks to
Ray Moser for suggesting this approach!] I replaced all the
‘ANY’ types with ‘(#PCDATA)’ string types. Then I imported
the DTD and bingo! … it worked. It created *body elements,
etc. The only problem is that the ‘*body’ it created are now optional instead of being madatory. This means a call to
recordToDocument with ‘generateRequiredTags’ to ‘true’ does not generate the required tags.
WM have hit this problem before – their WmcXML11 package
from the Ariba Onramp pulls off a similar trick. It does not
have empty records and the *body elements in it are
mandatory as they should be. So I’m not happy WM obviously
solved this same problem but did not publish their
workaround. Grr!
I have a SR open with WM and have told them about my
progress. I’ll keep you updated about this.
“happy WM obviously solved this same problem but did not
publish their workaround.”
My guess is that they didn’t fix the DTD and import it, they
just fixed the record definition afterwards, the result of
which is what is in their OnRamp package. Perhaps the same
would work for you, since the record should never change
(the DTD should never need to be reimported).
Thanks VR So you got the same info too eh? Don’t worry
too much about this - I’m sure it’ll get solved soon.
Infact, it may be solved :
> My guess is … they just fixed the record definition
afterwards
Thanks Rob - I was thinking of doing that and you’re right -
its only 8 substitutions in the DTD. Two elements -
OtherOrderTarget and SupplierPartAuxiliaryID - are a bit
complicated. They appear multiple times in the record, but
aren’t seperated into component parts in WM. This, though,
only causes a problem if data isn’t mapped and
recordToDocument is called.