> From: Gary L Peskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: javax.xml.transform: prohibiting Java extensions
>
>
> ...
>
> Julian --
>
> While you are technically correct here, this doesn't really help all
> that much. According to RFC 2396 section 5.2, Joe's URI reference
> "http:my/local.file" is not a legal URI reference any more. However, I
> think that Joe was referring to relative-path references versus
> absolute-path references discussed in section 5.
>
> In any event, to get back to where we started, your original message on
> this thread said:
>
> "By the way, quoting from
> <http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/extensions.html>:
>
> "Although the namespace declarations for the class and package formats
> are
> shown with the xalan:// prefix, the current implementation for those
> formats
> will simply use the string to the right of the rightmost forward slash
> as
> the Java class name. This format is shown in order to comply with W3C
> recommendations for namespace declarations."
>
> This statement is completely misleading. The XML namespace spec says
> that
> the namespace name should be a URI ref. If you choose to "invent" a URI
> scheme as "xalan:", you have complete control of scheme-specific-part,
> there
> is no explicit requirement for the leading "//". Besides, if "xalan:" is
> going to be supported in the future (instead of the XSLT 1.1 draft
> method),
> at least the URI scheme should be officially registered..."
>
> What should we do so that the extensions.html page is not "completely
> misleading". Can I just delete the last sentence of the quoted
> paragraph?
Gary,
yes, I think removing the sentence about the so-called (:-) W3C requirements
would remove the possible confusion here.
Thanks for the feedback,
Julian
