Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> was heard to say:
| Once the relative URI is interpreted relative to that location,
| it's open season -- map the ID to /dev/null, to NUL:, to an error,
| to a local cache, to whatever.  But that's AFTER it's been
| interpreted relative to the location of the resource etc.

Then you didn't respond to the most relevant part of my original
reply. Why is it the case that an external resolver must only see the
absolute URI? I don't understand from where you draw the conclusion
that early normalization is a requirement.

/ Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
>
> I don't understand your conclusion at all. Why is it the case that
> this doctype declaration:
> 
>   <!DOCTYPE foo PUBLIC "-//Example//DTD foo" SYSTEM "../foo.dtd">
> 
> must be presented to the resolver as
> 
>   public="-//Example//DTD foo"
>   system="file://path/to/absolute/foo.dtd"
> 
> Why is it not equally reasonable for the resolver to be presented with
> 
>   public="-//Example//DTD foo"
>   system="../foo.dtd"
> 
> since that's actually what the document *says*.
> 
> If the system identifier that the parser finally winds up using is a
> relative URI reference, it's clear that it's relative to the base URI
> of the containing entity. As I said before, I don't think that's in
> dispute.
> 
> What I have never understood is why the SAX API feels that "early
> absolutization" is preferable to "late absolutization".

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | Where it is permissible both to die and not to
XML Standards Engineer | die, it is an abuse of valour to die.--Mencius
Technology Dev. Group  | 
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |