Dick Deneer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/07/2006 04:00:09 PM: > You may be theorically right, but it is obvious that it would be very > practical to have it available together with the systemid in the > entityResolver. Returning a schema with another namespace is just > useless. > > And in continuing about my question if the parser will resolve the > entity by itself or not, I will suggest for another property where > you van set a kind of finalResolver with the same method as > resolveEntity, that wil get a callback if the parser did not find the > entity. Then you get a last chance to resolve it yourself.
I don't see the need for this. You already get a chance in your EntityResolver and it can try opening an InputStream from the system ID (the default behaviour) and if that fails it can do something else. > Op 7-jul-2006, om 20:58 heeft Joseph Kesselman het volgende geschreven: > > > A namespace name, although it is expressed as a URI, is just a > > name. Normal > > XML processing never never attempt to retrieve anything from it, so > > it is > > never processed by the EntityResolver. > > > > (The Semantic Web group may eventually define what, if anything, > > might be > > accessable through the namespace URI. But for now, treat it just as a > > string in URI syntax.) > > > > ______________________________________ > > "... Three things see no end: A loop with exit code done wrong, > > A semaphore untested, And the change that comes along. ..." > > -- "Threes" Rev 1.1 - Duane Elms / Leslie Fish > > (http://www.ovff.org/pegasus/songs/threes-rev-11.html) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
