Hi,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Julian Reschkejulian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Antony Xerich wrote:
I think the only problem place is {}nodeLocalName. It may be qualified
name with empty ns prefix ( , {}nodeLocalName ) or expanded name with
empty ns uri ( , nodeLocalName ). It is interesting
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Jukka Zittingjukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Julian Reschkejulian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Antony Xerich wrote:
I think the only problem place is {}nodeLocalName. It may be qualified
name with empty ns prefix ( ,
Good afternoon!
We are interested in the grammar and restrictions of LocalNames. As for
§3.2.2 Local Names (JSR 283) chars like '{' or '}' are valid chars to use
in LocalName. Would {my}NodeName be a valid LocalName in your Jackrabbit
2.0? If it does then how would it be parsed as
Hi,
2009/9/1 niko...@ukr.net:
o'k! Let's jackrabit got path like
/{my:favorite}jackrabbit/mailing/
my:favorite is a valid uri and also
{my:favorite}jackrabbit is a valid localName (§3.2.2 Local Names(JSR
283) chars like '{' or '}' are valid chars to use in LocalName).
I think the only problem place is {}nodeLocalName. It may be qualified
name with empty ns prefix ( , {}nodeLocalName ) or expanded name with
empty ns uri ( , nodeLocalName ). It is interesting how would it be
translated?
Antony Xerich wrote:
I think the only problem place is {}nodeLocalName. It may be qualified
name with empty ns prefix ( , {}nodeLocalName ) or expanded name
with empty ns uri ( , nodeLocalName ). It is interesting how would
it be translated?
I think the *intent* was to treat {}foo as a local
Spec says:
ExpandedName ::= '{' Namespace '}' LocalName
where
Namespace ::= EmptyString | Uri
So {}foo is an expanded form with empty ns uri but also is a local name,
cause { and } are valid chars NT-chars (
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-Char)
And there is still a question how would Jackrabbit
Good afternoon!
We are interested in the grammar and restrictions of LocalNames. As for §3.2.2
Local Names (JSR 283) chars like '{' or '}' are valid chars to use in
LocalName. Would {my}NodeName be a valid LocalName in your Jackrabbit 2.0? If
it does then how would it be parsed as expanded
niko...@ukr.net wrote:
Good afternoon!
We are interested in the grammar and restrictions of LocalNames. As for
§3.2.2 Local Names (JSR 283) chars like '{' or '}' are valid chars to
use in LocalName. Would {my}NodeName be a valid LocalName in your
Jackrabbit 2.0? If it does then how would it
