Impossible #1085 error

Question

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>

Answer 1

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 <[email protected]> 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>
>