Remote server implementation fails to validate
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:08 pm
I have a remote server (ASPX on IIS) which is serving XML for the IVR to use. Having problems getting it to verify, though: for example, for the url:
http://devtb.com/plumivr/default.aspx?event=test
...when viewed in a browser, using "view source", the result is this:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<vxml version="2.0">
<form>
<prompt>
This is a test
</prompt>
</form>
</vxml>
...but if I try to run it through the "Verify VXML" function in the developer utilities on the site, using the same URL as the page to verify, I get this as a result:
This document is not valid VoiceXML!
Start tag expected, '<' not found in Entity, line: 3
Document:
1 <?xml version="1.0"?>
2 <!DOCTYPE vxml PUBLIC "-//The Plum Group//DTD VOICEXML 2.1//EN" "/usr/local/plumvp/vxml.dtd">
3 This is a test
4 </prompt></form></vxml>
I tried experimenting with DOCTYPE tags a little, and to no avail... inserting the tag shown in the return message from the XML validator gets the validator to work, but then my site crashes because it doesn't have such a directory or file in it.
Please advise...
Thanks,
Dan Sutton
http://devtb.com/plumivr/default.aspx?event=test
...when viewed in a browser, using "view source", the result is this:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<vxml version="2.0">
<form>
<prompt>
This is a test
</prompt>
</form>
</vxml>
...but if I try to run it through the "Verify VXML" function in the developer utilities on the site, using the same URL as the page to verify, I get this as a result:
This document is not valid VoiceXML!
Start tag expected, '<' not found in Entity, line: 3
Document:
1 <?xml version="1.0"?>
2 <!DOCTYPE vxml PUBLIC "-//The Plum Group//DTD VOICEXML 2.1//EN" "/usr/local/plumvp/vxml.dtd">
3 This is a test
4 </prompt></form></vxml>
I tried experimenting with DOCTYPE tags a little, and to no avail... inserting the tag shown in the return message from the XML validator gets the validator to work, but then my site crashes because it doesn't have such a directory or file in it.
Please advise...
Thanks,
Dan Sutton