People do have namespaces like "http://www.name.com/foo/schema.xsd";, so that the namespace URI is also the download page for the document. It's hard to make the argument that having something like that is a mistake; and the generated package name for that is currently "com.name.foo.schema". In my experience, I have never seen an URI ending in .-separated numbers though (well, until now that is)
So in this case, the answer is: no, it's not a bug, it was a design choice, the design could be changed in the future, but I would recommend against doing so, for backwards-compatibility reasons. Radu > -----Original Message----- > From: Johannes Echterhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: problem concerning version number in targetNamespace > > > But what meaning would a file with extension in a URI of a > targetNamespace have? Would a namespace like > "http://anything.com/myfault.html"; not be a mistake by the > user? And if > so, shouldn't the user then correct the namespace if he does > not like a > package like "com.anything.myfaulthtml"? > > Backwards-compatibility cannot be abandoned, of course. The > question is > how many users already have a namespace like the one above > and arranged > with the existing transformation rule. A workaround could be > to include > the version number before the last slash, e.g. > "http://foo.bar/v01.01.00/myconcern"; ... or just use version numbers > with hyphens instead of dots. > > However, I just wanted to make sure whether this was a bug > and could be > fixed in a future version or not. > > Thanks, > Johannes > > > Radu Preotiuc-Pietro wrote: > > >Yeah, this is actually true, but not bug. > >The reason for it is that the rule for transforming URIs > into package > >names says: if the part after the last slash looks like a file with > >extension, then strip the extension, where file with extension is > >interpreted as "anything + '.' + 3 chars" or "anything + '.' > + 2 chars" > >or "anything + '.html'". Your v01.01.00 string triggers this rule. > > > >Now I can see what you're saying, but I am reluctant to > changing this > >since I don't know exactly what the new rule would be and also for > >backwards-compatibility reasons. > > > >Radu > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Johannes Echterhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:51 AM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: problem concerning version number in targetNamespace > >> > >> > >>Hello. > >> > >>For handling different schema versions it could be nice to > >>include the > >>version number in the targetNamespace of a schema (see > >>http://www.devx.com/xml/Article/22553 to get an overview of > >>what I mean). > >> > >>So I tested this a little bit. The following schema is my > >>test schema (I > >>compile it using the xmlbeans ant task): > >> > >><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > >><xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; > >>xmlns="http://foo.bar/v01-01-00"; > >>targetNamespace="http://foo.bar/v01-01-00"; > >>elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"> > >> <xs:element name="Root"> > >> <xs:complexType> > >> <xs:sequence> > >> <xs:element name="foobar" type="xs:string"/> > >> </xs:sequence> > >> </xs:complexType> > >> </xs:element> > >></xs:schema> > >> > >>The resulting package for the generated classes is: > bar.foo.v010100 - > >>alright. > >>But if I change the targetNamespace to v01.01.00 the > >>resulting package > >>is bar.foo.v0101! If I use v00.01.10 as version number the > resulting > >>package is bar.foo.v0001 whereas if i use v00-01-10 it's > >>bar.foo.v000110 > >> > >>Seems to me that if I use a version number like vx.y.z with > >>x, y and z > >>being any number of digits the third part of the version > >>number - z - is > >>completely ignored when using dots to separate version fragments. I > >>compiled with v0123456.1.01 and the result was > >>bar.foo.v01234561 (using > >>hyphens the result is bar.foo.v0123456110). > >> > >>Is this a bug? It would be nice to be able to compile schemas that > >>include the schema version in their targetNamespace > correctly even if > >>the version number uses dots. What do you think of this? > >> > >>Regards, > >> Johannes > >> > >> > >>------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
