Hi Mark,
It's up to you. I'm happy to push to change the conformance test, since it
really ought to be done. But, if you think there's some value in
supporting legacy documents, then send a patch with the change, or new
copies of the XalanParsedURI files.
Thanks!
Dave
"Mark Weaver"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Xalan-C-Users" <>
> cc: (bcc: David N
Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: RE: RE: Upcoming
Xalan-C++ 1.5 release
03/21/2003 03:13
AM
Beat me to it :)
I can implement it this way if required.
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 March 2003 06:09
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RE: Upcoming Xalan-C++ 1.5 release
>
>
> From C.2 Abnormal Examples :
> ...
>
> "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.
>
> http:g = http:g ; for validating parsers
> | http://a/b/c/g ; for backwards compatibility"
>
>
> So it's arguably OK, even if not encouraged.
>
> However there is also an implication there that
> not supporting it is OK.
>
> Cheers,
> Berin
>
> >
> > From: David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: Upcoming Xalan-C++ 1.5 release
> > Date: 21/03/2003 15:09:54
> > To: <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Thanks -- I didn't have any problems applyting the patch. I
> had to make a
> > few minor changes to get the code to compile on VC6, which does
> not support
> > initialization in the class definition, so you might want to
> take a quick
> > look at the result, once I check it in.
> >
> > One problem: we now seem to be failing a conformance tests, related to
> > relative URI resolution. I think your code is correct, but
> before I start
> > fighting over the test, I'd like to make sure I should. It has
> to do with
> > the following stylesheet:
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
> > version="1.0">
> >
> > <!-- FileName: impincl27 -->
> > <!-- Document: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt -->
> > <!-- DocVersion: 19991116 -->
> > <!-- Section: 2.6.2 -->
> > <!-- Creator: Morris Kwan -->
> > <!-- Purpose: href is a URI containing the "file:" scheme part.
-->
> >
> > <xsl:import href="file:fragments/imp27b.xsl"/>
> >
> > <xsl:output method="xml" indent="no" encoding="UTF-8"/>
> >
> > <xsl:template match="/">
> > <out>
> > <xsl:apply-templates select="doc" />
> > </out>
> > </xsl:template>
> >
> > </xsl:stylesheet>
> >
> > Notice the href of xsl:import has a scheme. From reading
> RFC2396, it seems
> > to me this is an absolute URI:
> >
> > "Relative URI references are distinguished from absolute URI in that
> > they do not begin with a scheme name. Instead, the scheme
> is inherited
> > from the base URI, as described in Section 5.2"
> >
> > Unfortunately, it looks like the Java processors (which probably rely
on
> > the Java URL class) think this is a relative reference. The Microsoft
> > processor chokes if the scheme is present, which I think is correct. I
> > don't mind having us fail something like this if failing is correct,
but
> > I'd rather make the argument that it ought to be removed from the
> > conformance suite.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > |---------+--------------------------->
> > | | "Mark Weaver" |
> > | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
> > | | > |
> > | | |
> > | | 03/20/2003 06:52|
> > | | AM |
> > |---------+--------------------------->
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------|
> > |
> |
> > | To: "Xalan-C-Users"
> <[email protected]>
> |
> > | cc: (bcc: David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)
> |
> > | Subject: RE: Upcoming Xalan-C++ 1.5 release
> |
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------|
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mark, can you make sure your patch is compatible with the
> latest CVS and
> > > provide a CVS diff? Also, actual copies of the new source files
> > > instead of
> > > diffs (XalanParsedURI.cpp and XalanParsedURI.hpp) would be
> much easier to
> > > deal with.
> > >
> > OK, the included zip is a cvs diff against the current cvs plus the
> > individual files. Basically the difference was the addition of
> namespaces
> > caused the patch to fail.
> >
> > If you unzip in the xml-xalan directory, then the patch should
> apply OK and
> > the new files should go in the right place. If not, I've stuck
> > URISupport.cpp in there as well for luck. I've also added a
> patch against
> > Projects, with the caveat that I don't have VC6 so the editing
> was done in
> > notepad.
> >
> > I'm not sure how the configure system works so I don't know if other
> > platforms will pick up the new CPP file -- is there anything I
> should do to
> > add this?
> >
> > I've also included the test app, but this has only a VC7
> project file, it
> > did run fine after recompiling things and adding a using
> namespace xalan.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
>
> This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
>
>
>
>
