Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > > However, does this then mean that Xalan and Saxon are wrong in > > accepting > > > > file:myDir/myFile > > > > as a relative URI? > > The new draft for RFC 2396bis[1] clarifies this > > <q> > Some parsers allow the scheme name to be present in a > relative URI if it is the same as > the base URI scheme. This is considered to be a loophole in > prior specifications of partial > URI [RFC1630]. Its use should be avoided, but is allowed for > backwards compatibility. > http:g = http:g ; for validating parsers > / http://a/b/c/g ; for backwards compatibility > </q> > > So if Saxon and Xalan *require* the file: scheme on relative > URLs they are wrong > (Eddie, what was the status of this?) but it looks like they > may provide it for backwards > compatability. Anyway, we use it at our peril. Half a step > forward :-) > 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. Saxon certainly doesn't require any scheme name to be present in a relative URL, and it's a surprise to me that it allows it, but if Java allows it, then I do. Frankly, the RFC specs on URIs are so incomplete and buggy that there's absolutely no hope of ever getting a clean implementation, or two implementations that are 100% interoperable. So I'm happy to leave the JDK folks to write the bugs rather than writing them myself. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@n... work: Michael.Kay@s...
|
