Hi, I'm quite certain that there are problems with XMLUri and XMLURL in Xerces 2.0. I found them when trying to use this constructor from XMLUri:
XMLUri::XMLUri ( const XMLUri *const baseURI, const XMLCh *const uriSpec) For the first parameter I have a pointer to a valid baseURI, and am passing in a relative URI as the second parameter. I found, when using the test cases from rf2693 Appendix C, that newly constructed URI's text (using getUriText) does not match the results given in the rfc. ex. base URI="http://a/b/c/d;p?q"; and relative URI = "g:h". rfc says this should be resolved as "g:h" when actually the text returned is "http://a/b/c/g:h"; I also found that there were similar issues when running the test cases using this constructor from XMLURL: XMLURL (const XMLCh *const baseURL,const char *const relativeURL) I did post about this before, but no one got back to me and I haven't had a chance to have an indepth look at this yet... Thanks! Cheers, Jennifer On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Brad Settlemyer wrote: > I'd have to look more closely at xerces, but I believe it requires things > like this > > file:///file.xsd (which is perhaps legal, but probably not) > > when it means > > file:/file.xsd > > and it allows things (encourages them I think) like > file://file.xsd > > which is illegal (or at least I think 2693 it says that). > > Of course I've not used the xerces 2.0, so it may be different, and I'm not > currently using any urls with xerces so I'll have to look thru some of my > stuff at home to make sure the above examples are valid or not in xerces, > but I was talking to the guy who implemented all the URL stuff on kde, and > he was showing me alot of mistakes I was making in forming filesystem URLs. > > Brad > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jesse Pelton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 2:21 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: rfc 1808 and rfc 2693 -- urls > > > > > > What are the differences? Are they material or significant? I thought 2396 > > (not 2693) basically cleaned up 1738 and 1808, but didn't > > introduce anything > > new. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brad Settlemyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 1:07 PM > > To: [List] Xerces-C List > > Subject: rfc 1808 and rfc 2693 -- urls > > > > > > Hello, > > > > It appears that currently xerces supports rfc 1808 when it comes to > > uri/urls, is there any reason to upgrade to rfc 2693, or any plan in place > > to do that. I don't have a specific problem, I was just > > interested to hear > > if there was any interest to upgrade (or if perhaps the upgrade > > has already > > occurred in a version since 1.7.2)? > > > > RFC 1808 - http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1808.html > > RFC 2693 - http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/rfc/2396/full.html > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Brad Settlemyer / Software Developer > > Stronghold Technologies > > 46040 Center Oak Plaza, Ste 160 / Sterling, VA 20166 > > Phone: 703-547-0142 / Fax: 571-434-1478 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -- Jennifer "Georgina" Schachter, Software Engineer +44-1865-203192 DecisionSoft Limited http://www.decisionsoft.com XML Development and Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
