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

Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?

• To: "Xml-Dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:56:43 +1100
• References: <3DACA738.6070600@a...> <3DAD15BF.B3C55B59@s...> <3DAD191C.4040406@a...>

From: "Eddie Robertsson" <erobertsson@a...>

> However, does this then mean that Xalan and Saxon are wrong in accepting
> 
> file:myDir/myFile
> 
> as a relative URI?

The new draft for RFC 2396bis[1] clarifies this

<q>
Some parsers allow the scheme name to be present in a relative URI if it is the same as 
the base URI scheme. This is considered to be a loophole in prior specifications of partial 
URI [RFC1630]. Its use should be avoided, but is allowed for backwards compatibility. 
   http:g       =  http:g           ; for validating parsers
                  /    http://a/b/c/g   ; for backwards compatibility 
</q>

So if Saxon and Xalan *require* the file: scheme on relative URLs they are wrong 
(Eddie, what was the status of this?) but it looks like they may provide it for backwards 
compatability. Anyway, we use it at our peril.  Half a step forward :-)

Cheers 
Rick Jelliffe


[1] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#rfc.section.C.2

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• References:
  • Relative URLs using the file scheme?
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@a...>
  • Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Seen on BugTraq: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack
• Next by Date: Re: Internationalising Regular Expressions
• Previous by thread: Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• Next by thread: RE: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread