Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Eddie Robertsson" <email@example.com>
> However, does this then mean that Xalan and Saxon are wrong in accepting
> as a relative URI?
The new draft for RFC 2396bis clarifies this
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
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 :-)