• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:15:48 +0000
• In-reply-to: <000801c28042$1b524ad0$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <000801c28042$1b524ad0$6401a8c0@pcukmka>

Michael Kay wrote,
> Saxon largely delegates its URI manipulation to the JDK, except for a
> few cases where the JDK doesn't offer the required functionality. If
> the JDK gets it wrong, I will need a lot of persuasion to implement
> workarounds at the Saxon level.

The relative URI resolution in java.net.URL is (or at least was the last 
time I looked) horrendously broken. A few years back I tested it 
against the resolution examples from the back of RFC 2396 and got 
something like a 40% failure rate. Amusingly it agreed with one of the 
published examples when it was actually a typo in the RFC.

I believe that the new java.net.URI in J2SE 1.4+ does the job properly, 
tho' I've no idea whether or not that behaviour has been retrofitted to 
java.net.URL (my guess is, quite possibly not).

Cheers,


Miles

• References:
  • RE: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Xml to HTML using XSL kinda tricky
• Next by Date: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Previous by thread: RE: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• Next by thread: Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread