Julian Reschke wrote:
> > According to Joe Kesselman
> > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xalan-dev&m=97024906624126&w=2), the
> > W3C has ruled that all namespace names should be absolute. While RFC
> > 2396 does allow the scheme to define the absolute and relative URI
> > syntax of the scheme-specific-part within that scheme, the "generic URI"
> > syntax begins with "//" so we did the same to further emphasize visually
> > that this is an absolute URI. At this stage, we're still kind of
> > experimenting with the xalan: scheme so nothing is set in stone.
>
> I think this is a misunderstanding. From RFC2396, chapter 3:
>
> "An absolute URI contains the name of the scheme being used (<scheme>)
> followed by a colon (":") and then a string (the <scheme-specific-part>)
> whose interpretation depends on the scheme."
>
> and from 3.1:
>
> "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."
>
> So the very presence of a scheme name makes "xalan:..." absolute...
I understand this and agree with you. However, as I said, I decided to
include the "//" to emphasize the absolute nature of the URI. This was
more of a visual clue than anything required by the RFC. We have never
really fleshed out what the semantics of the xalan: scheme should be.
I'd be interested to here how your efforts with regard to your
ExtensionsTable subclass work out.
Gary
Gary
