[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
- From: Richard Tobin <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:07:46 +0100 (BST)
>> James Clark pointed out  that the proposal (with his modifications)
>> moves SAX more into line with the XML Infoset specification .
> But that would apply only to UNPARSED entities (or presumably notations).
The Infoset also has Unexpanded Entity Reference items for use by
parsers that do not expand external general entities.
> I still feel like you're ignoring my basic point: if that draft
> expects to interpret those identifiers in conflict with clear language
> in the XML specification, the bug is in that draft, not SAX.
I haven't been following this thread closely, but doesn't the XML spec
give specific permission for system ids to *not* be interpreted relative
to the "expected" base URI?
Unless otherwise provided by information outside the scope of this
specification (e.g. a special XML element type defined by a
particular DTD, or a processing instruction defined by a particular
application specification), relative URIs are relative to the
location of the resource within which the entity declaration
So a processing instruction might specify an alternative base URI, and
the system id would have to be resolved at the application level, not