Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>> James Clark pointed out [1] that the proposal (with his modifications) >> moves SAX more into line with the XML Infoset specification [2]. > But that would apply only to UNPARSED entities (or presumably notations). The Infoset also has Unexpanded Entity Reference items for use by parsers that do not expand external general entities. > I still feel like you're ignoring my basic point: if that draft > expects to interpret those identifiers in conflict with clear language > in the XML specification, the bug is in that draft, not SAX. I haven't been following this thread closely, but doesn't the XML spec give specific permission for system ids to *not* be interpreted relative to the "expected" base URI? Unless otherwise provided by information outside the scope of this specification (e.g. a special XML element type defined by a particular DTD, or a processing instruction defined by a particular application specification), relative URIs are relative to the location of the resource within which the entity declaration occurs. So a processing instruction might specify an alternative base URI, and the system id would have to be resolved at the application level, not by SAX. -- Richard
|
