4 Replies Latest reply on May 10, 2009 10:57 PM by hsfrey

    Impossible #1085 error

    hsfrey

      I have 2 identical versions of an XML file read by a trivial program with HTTPService.

      I have 2 versions of the program, identical except for the data file names.

      I know they're identical, since I can toggle the error by changing only the file name in one program.

      One runs fine, the other gets a 1085 runtime error. ???????????????????

      I'm afraid to just use the version that runs, since I have a lot more work to do on the programs and data, and don't want to have this unexplained error hanging over my head.

       

      The reason I have 2 identical versions of the data is that in debugging it, I transferred the XML in pieces to a new file, to isolate the errors.

       

      The 2 data files now come out identical using the diffdaff file comparator.

      The XML is found to have no errors by the W3 XML validator, so there are no unmatched tags.

       

      The original file, paralog.xml is read by program readParalog.mxml and results in a 1085 error.

      The second file, testdata.xml is read by program readTestData.mxml and runs beautifully.

       

      I attach the program file paralog.xml and the readParalog.mxml program which gives the 1085 error.

       

      I don't yet have FlexBuilder (I just broke down and ordered it.)

       

      Any suggestions would be appreciated!

      =======================================

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
      <mx:Application xmlns:mx="http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml" layout="horizontal"
        creationComplete="initApp()">

       

      <!-- file readParalog.mxml -->

       
          <mx:HTTPService    id="getData" url="data/paralog.xml" resultFormat="e4x" result="resultHandler(event)" fault="faultHandler(event)"/>

       

          <mx:VBox width="70%" height="100%">
            <mx:Panel title="XML file" width="100%" height="100%">
              <mx:TextArea    width="100%" height="100%" editable="false" text="{xmlData.toXMLString()}"/>
            </mx:Panel>
          </mx:VBox>


      <mx:Script>
          <![CDATA[
            import mx.controls.Alert;
            import mx.rpc.events.ResultEvent;
            import mx.rpc.events.FaultEvent;
            import mx.collections.ArrayCollection;
                   
            [Bindable]
            private var xmlData:XML;
            private function initApp():void       { getData.send(); }
            private function resultHandler(event:ResultEvent):void       { xmlData = event.result as XML;  }

            private function faultHandler(event:FaultEvent):void     { Alert.show("Error: " + event.fault.faultString, "Application Error");    }

          ]]>
      </mx:Script>

      </mx:Application>

      ==============================================================

       

      Here's the data:

       

      <?xml version="1.0"?>

       

      <case>
      <title>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER</title>
      <detail>
      <docket>U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-290</docket>
      <date>2008-06-26</date>
      <syllabus>07-290.Sy.html</syllabus>
      <decision author="AS">MU-07-290.Op.AS.html</decision>
      <dissent author="JS">MU-07-290.Di.JS.html</dissent>
      <dissent author="SB">MU-07-290.Di.SB.html</dissent>
      </detail>

       

      <issue id="i1">
          <question>
          Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to possess a usable handgun and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home? 
          </question>
          <claim id="i1Y" author="AS" textAt="07-290.AS#S18, 07-290.AS#S625"
                          supportedBy="(i1Yg1)" >
              <statement>Yes. It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the [District of Columbia]’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.</statement>
          </claim>
          <claim id="i1N1" author="JS" textAt="07-290.JS#GETTHIS" opposedBy="(i1N1g1)">
              <statement>No. The prefatory clause demonstrates that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.</statement>
          </claim>
          <claim id="i1N2" author="SB" textAt="07-290.SB#GETTHIS">
              <statement>No</statement>
          </claim>
      </issue><!--i1-->

       

      <grounds id="i1Yg1" supports="i1Y">
      <ruleclaim id="i1Yg1r1" ruletype="constitution" strength="certain" force="binding" textAt="07-290.AS#S26">
          <rule>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed</rule>
          <citation>U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment</citation>
      </ruleclaim><!--i1Yg1r1-->
      <ruleclaim id="i1Yg1r2" ruletype="judicial decision" strength="certain" force="strong" textAt="07-290.AS#S27" >
          <rule>[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning</rule>
          <citation>United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)</citation>
          <citation>Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824)</citation>
      </ruleclaim><!--i1Yg1r2-->
      </grounds><!--i1Yg1-->

       

      <grounds id="i1N1g1" opposes="i1N1">
      <factclaim id="i1N1g1f1" ruletype="treatise" force="persuasive" textAt="07-290.AS#S39">
          <evidence>other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose</evidence>
          <citation>Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814-821 (1998)</citation>
      </factclaim>
      <ruleclaim id="i1N1g1r1" ruletype="treatise" force="persuasive" textAt="07-290.AS#S44">
          <rule>Apart from a clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.</rule>
          <citation>F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268-269 (P. Potter ed. 1871);T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42-45 (2d ed. 1874); J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)</citation>
      </ruleclaim>
      </grounds><!--i1N1g1-->

       

      <grounds id="i1Yg2" supports="i1Y">
      <argument id="i1Yg2a1" type="enthymeme">
          <statement id="i1Yg2a1s1">The Second Amendment "right of the people" refers unambiguously to right of individual persons, not a "collective" right</statement>
          <ruleclaim id="i1Yg2a1r1" ruletype="unstated" >If a phrase is used several times in a document with an unambiguous meaning, an ambiguous use should be interpreted the same way as the others.</ruleclaim>
          <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f1" textAt="07-290.AS#S50">
              <evidence type="textual">The phrase "right of the people" is used two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause, both times with unambiguous reference to individual, not collective rights</evidence>
              <citation>U.S. Constitution, 1st and 4th Amendments</citation>
          </factclaim>
          <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f2" textAt="07-290.AS#S53">
              <evidence>Three provisions arguably refer to "the people" acting    collectively--but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights</evidence>
              <citation>U.S. Constitution, preamble, Article I §2 (providing that "the people" will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with "the States" or "the people")</citation>
          </factclaim>
          <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f3" textAt="07-290.AS#S55">
              <evidence>Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right</evidence>
              <citation>unsupported</citation>
          </factclaim>
          <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f4" textAt="07-290.AS#S56">
              <evidence>in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.</evidence>
              <citation>unsupported</citation>
          </factclaim>
          <ruleclaim id="i1Yg2r2" textAt="07-290.AS#S57" ruletype="dicta" force="persuasive" strength="weak">
              <rule>'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community</rule>
              <citation>United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990)</citation>
          </ruleclaim>
      </argument>
      </grounds><!--i1Yg2-->
      </case>

        • 1. Re: Impossible #1085 error
          Michael Borbor Level 4

          Interesting. One little suggestion look in the Fx documentation what 

          the error 1085 stands for.

           

          Are the two apps mxml identical as well?

           

          Sincerely,

           

          Michael

           

          El 10/05/2009, a las 22:29, hsfrey <forums@adobe.com> escribió:

           

          >

          I have 2 identical versions of an XML file read by a trivial 

          program with HTTPService.

          I have 2 versions of the program, identical except for the data 

          file names.

          I know they're identical, since I can toggle the error by changing 

          only the file name in one program.

          *One runs fine, the other gets a 1085 runtime 

          error.* ???????????????????

          I'm afraid to just use the version that runs, since I have a lot 

          more work to do on the programs and data, and don't want to have 

          this unexplained error hanging over my head.

          >

          The reason I have 2 identical versions of the data is that in 

          debugging it, I transferred the XML in pieces to a new file, to 

          isolate the errors.

          >

          The 2 data files now come out identical using the diffdaff file 

          comparator.

          The XML is found to have no errors by the W3 XML validator, so there 

          are no unmatched tags.

          >

          The original file, paralog.xml is read by program readParalog.mxml 

          and results in a 1085 error.

          The second file, testdata.xml is read by program readTestData.mxml 

          and runs beautifully.

          >

          I attach the program file paralog.xml and the readParalog.mxml 

          program which gives the 1085 error.

          >

          I don't yet have FlexBuilder (I just broke down and ordered it.)

          >

          Any suggestions would be appreciated!

          =======================================

          <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

          <mx:Application xmlns:mx="http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml

          layout="horizontal"

            creationComplete="initApp()">

          >

          <!-- file readParalog.mxml -->

          >

              <mx:HTTPService    id="getData" url="data/paralog.xml" 

          resultFormat="e4x" result="resultHandler(event)" 

          fault="faultHandler(event)"/>

          >

              <mx:VBox width="70%" height="100%">

                <mx:Panel title="XML file" width="100%" height="100%">

                  <mx:TextArea    width="100%" height="100%" editable="false" 

          text="{xmlData.toXMLString()}"/>

                </mx:Panel>

              </mx:VBox>

          >

          <mx:Script>

              <![CDATA[

                import mx.controls.Alert;

                import mx.rpc.events.ResultEvent;

                import mx.rpc.events.FaultEvent;

                import mx.collections.ArrayCollection;

          >

               

                private var xmlData:XML;

                private function initApp():void       { getData.send(); }

                private function resultHandler(event:ResultEvent):void       

          { xmlData = event.result as XML;  }

                private function faultHandler(event:FaultEvent):void     

          { Alert.show("Error: " + event.fault.faultString, "Application 

          Error");    }

              ]]>

          </mx:Script>

          </mx:Application>

          ==============================================================

          >

          Here's the data:

          >

          <?xml version="1.0"?>

          >

          <case>

          <title>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER</title>

          <detail>

          <docket>U.S. Supreme Court No. 07-290</docket>

          <date>2008-06-26</date>

          <syllabus>07-290.Sy.html</syllabus>

          <decision author="AS">MU-07-290.Op.AS.html</decision>

          <dissent author="JS">MU-07-290.Di.JS.html</dissent>

          <dissent author="SB">MU-07-290.Di.SB.html</dissent>

          </detail>

          >

          <issue id="i1">

              <question>

              Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to possess 

          a usable handgun and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, 

          such as self-defense within the home?

              </question>

              <claim id="i1Y" author="AS" textAt="07-290.AS#S18, 07-290.AS#S625"

                              supportedBy="(i1Yg1)" >

                  <statement>Yes. It held that the Second Amendment protects 

          an individual right to possess firearms and that the [District of 

          Columbia]’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that f

          irearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for se

          lf-defense, violated that right.</statement>

              </claim>

              <claim id="i1N1" author="JS" textAt="07-290.JS#GETTHIS" 

          opposedBy="(i1N1g1)">

                  <statement>No. The prefatory clause demonstrates that it 

          protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection 

          with militia service.</statement>

              </claim>

              <claim id="i1N2" author="SB" textAt="07-290.SB#GETTHIS">

                  <statement>No</statement>

              </claim>

          </issue><!i1>

          >

          <grounds id="i1Yg1" supports="i1Y">

          <ruleclaim id="i1Yg1r1" ruletype="constitution" strength="certain" 

          force="binding" textAt="07-290.AS#S26">

              <rule>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 

          of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 

          shall not be infringed</rule>

              <citation>U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment</citation>

          </ruleclaim><!i1Yg1r1>

          <ruleclaim id="i1Yg1r2" ruletype="judicial decision" 

          strength="certain" force="strong" textAt="07-290.AS#S27" >

              <rule>[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the 

          voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary 

          as distinguished from technical meaning</rule>

              <citation>United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)</

          citation>

              <citation>Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824)</citation>

          </ruleclaim><!i1Yg1r2>

          </grounds><!i1Yg1>

          >

          <grounds id="i1N1g1" opposes="i1N1">

          <factclaim id="i1N1g1f1" ruletype="treatise" force="persuasive" 

          textAt="07-290.AS#S39">

              <evidence>other legal documents of the founding era, 

          particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, 

          commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose</evidence>

              <citation>Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. 

          L. Rev. 793, 814-821 (1998)</citation>

          </factclaim>

          <ruleclaim id="i1N1g1r1" ruletype="treatise" force="persuasive" 

          textAt="07-290.AS#S44">

              <rule>Apart from a clarifying function, a prefatory clause does 

          not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.</rule>

              <citation>F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268-269 (P. 

          Potter ed. 1871);T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of 

          Statutory and Constitutional Law 42-45 (2d ed. 1874); J. Bishop, 

          Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (18

          82) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)</citation>

          </ruleclaim>

          </grounds><!i1N1g1>

          >

          <grounds id="i1Yg2" supports="i1Y">

          <argument id="i1Yg2a1" type="enthymeme">

              <statement id="i1Yg2a1s1">The Second Amendment "right of the 

          people" refers unambiguously to right of individual persons, not a 

          "collective" right</statement>

              <ruleclaim id="i1Yg2a1r1" ruletype="unstated" >If a phrase is 

          used several times in a document with an unambiguous meaning, an 

          ambiguous use should be interpreted the same way as the others.</

          ruleclaim>

              <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f1" textAt="07-290.AS#S50">

                  <evidence type="textual">The phrase "right of the people" is 

          used two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition

          Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause, bot

          h times with unambiguous reference to individual, not collective rig

          hts</evidence>

                  <citation>U.S. Constitution, 1st and 4th Amendments</citation>

              </factclaim>

              <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f2" textAt="07-290.AS#S53">

                  <evidence>Three provisions arguably refer to "the people" 

          acting    collectively--but they deal with the exercise or 

          reservation of powers, not rights</evidence>

                  <citation>U.S. Constitution, preamble, Article I §2 (providi

          ng that "the people" will choose members of the House), and the Tent

          h Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Gover

          nment remain with "the States" or "the people")</citation>

              </factclaim>

              <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f3" textAt="07-290.AS#S55">

                  <evidence>Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" 

          attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an 

          individual right</evidence>

                  <citation>unsupported</citation>

              </factclaim>

              <factclaim id="i1Yg2a1f4" textAt="07-290.AS#S56">

                  <evidence>in all six other provisions of the Constitution 

          that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all 

          members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.</

          evidence>

                  <citation>unsupported</citation>

              </factclaim>

              <ruleclaim id="i1Yg2r2" textAt="07-290.AS#S57" ruletype="dicta" 

          force="persuasive" strength="weak">

                  <rule>'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art 

          employed in select parts of the Constitution… . sugges[t]

          that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the Fir

          st and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved

          in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who

          are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed su

          fficient connection with this country to be considered part of that 

          community</rule>

                  <citation>United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990

          )</citation>

              </ruleclaim>

          </argument>

          </grounds><!i1Yg2>

          </case>

          >

          • 2. Re: Impossible #1085 error
            ntsiii Level 3

            Try opening the two files in a browser, perhaps that will tell you something.

             

            Is it possible some editor or souce control syste has introduced some invisible character or something?

             

            Tracy

            • 3. Re: Impossible #1085 error
              hsfrey Level 1

              Michael:

               

                   The error refers to a tag which is not closed. That's why I specified that the XML data passed the W3 validation.

               

                   And the 2 apps are identical except for the name of the XML data file.

               

                   (Actually, they're not identical any more, since I added the fault handler to the one that didn't work.)

               

              Harvey

              • 4. Re: Impossible #1085 error
                hsfrey Level 1

                Tracy:

                 

                They look the same in the browser, but I think that the diffdaff comparator is a better judge than me that there is no difference between the XML files.

                I would guess that it would have picked up any invisible characters as well.

                 

                But, that's a good possibility. I suppose I could write a perl script to try to compare them character by character.

                 

                Diffdaff does ignore "white space". Maybe there's some character that Diffdaff thinks is white space but flex chokes on.

                 

                Is it likely that the flexbuilder debug facility will be more informative? Maybe I should just wait till it arrives (and I've spent a few months learning how to use it. <G>)

                 

                Harvey