I'm not sure there is a definition of the file scheme that is not a URL scheme. When 1630 was published, the distinction between URI and URL was not worked out yet.
At present, the official definition of the file scheme is shown by IANA to be 1738 (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html). In the case of an empty <host> specification, one has: file:///<path> so if one specifies file:///../fop.xml then this maps (on UNIX) to "/../fop.xml" which is not a legitimate path, or at least it will cause EACCESS or equivalent upon access; if you are discussing the use of the Java URI class, this is another matter, but just keep in mind that external specifications of the file URL should never have a relative path for <path>, and all external specifications of the form file:///foo.bar refers to the file foo.bar in the root directory (and not in relationship to some implied xml:base); at least this is my understanding of the formal definition of "file:" g. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Jeremias Maerki <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote: > I'm talking about URIs, not URLs. There's nothing in RFC 1630 that > prohibits relative URIs for the file URI scheme. It's actually > describing relative URIs. The file URIs are eventually resolved to file > URLs which are then absolute. > > On 04.02.2011 15:50:09 Glenn Adams wrote: > > note that the "file:" URL scheme does not technically support relative > URLs; > > however, that hasn't prevented some implementations from making > non-standard > > extensions to provide such support > > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Jeremias Maerki <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch > >wrote: > > > > > I found a potential problem: The <directory> Tag in the configuration > > > takes file paths (not URIs, since we can't detect files on arbitrary > > > URIs). FontInfoConfigurator doesn't try to resolve relative directories > > > against the base or font base URI (see #addDirectories() and > > > FontFileFinder.find(String)). So people using relative paths could run > > > into a small problem here. Maybe we need to resolve against the base > URI > > > if the base URI is a file-based URI. > > > > > > On 14.01.2011 14:04:03 Simon Pepping wrote: > > > > Done. Simon > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:40:59PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:55:25AM +0000, Peter Hancock wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > When configuring the base directory using the fop.xconf relative > urls > > > > > > are based on the working directory, and not the fop.xconf. > > > > > > This contradicts the URI specification as pointed out in > > > > > > > http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Problem-with-custom-fonts-p10013042.html > > > > > > > > > > I hate it when applications show this bug. I was not aware that FOP > > > > > suffers from it. The problem must be solved as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone suggest a robust way of achieving this scenario, given > the > > > > > > current limitations of FOP, or should I fix this bug? > > > > > > > > > > It would be wonderful if you can provide a fix. > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > >
