[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi James,
>the xerces support question is a good one. where the url has a scheme, it is not a relative url.
>
>what's more, what is the sense of specifying the scheme on a relative url.
>wouldn't "myDir/mFile" make more sense. where one specifies the scheme, the effect would be distinctly not relative, since, for example, were a document to
>have, for example, an http: base url, a file: relative url would denote a change in scheme.
>
That's a good point and I did in fact test this with the latest version
of Xerces and it seems to work!
So it seems that a relative URI can be specified by not defining a
scheme which makes sense to me. However, does this then mean that Xalan
and Saxon are wrong in accepting
file:myDir/myFile
as a relative URI?
Cheers,
/Eddie
>
>none of which, however, affects the prejudice, that it should work anyway.
>
>...
>
>you wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I've run into a problem using Xerces (2.2.0) for W3C XML Schema
>>validation when it comes to specifying relative paths to the schema
>>document. Here is the scenario:
>>
>>...
>>
>>-------------------------8<--------------------------------------------------
>>Hi Eddie. Is a string of the form "file:myDir/myFile" really a relative
>>URI?
>>I'm not sure it is; the hostname isn't mentioned at the very least.
>>Shouldn't
>>it be "file:///./myDir/myFile"?
>>
>>
|
