[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal

• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:07:46 +0100 (BST)

>> 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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by Date: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Next by thread: Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread