[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1060?page=comments#action_62496 ] elharo commented on XERCESJ-1060: ---------------------------------
Roy Fielding has confirmed that this was a deliberate decision, and is indeed an incompatibility between 2396 and 3986. According to him, "No URI schemes were defined using the reg_name syntax of 2396, and therefore it was removed." Probably, nobody should be using such syntax now. What to do now? This is a tough call, but I tend to fall back on the letter of the law (or the spec). The schemas spec references 2396, not 3986. Therefore Xerces should be changed to allow this syntax. This might change in schema 1.1 though, which will likely reference 3986, not 2396. However, the current working draft still references RFC 2396. I've asked the schema working group to consider this issue. > anyURI validation is too strict > ------------------------------- > > Key: XERCESJ-1060 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1060 > Project: Xerces2-J > Type: Bug > Components: XML Schema datatypes > Versions: 2.5.0 > Environment: Stylus Studio 6.1, Windows XP > Reporter: Julian Cable > > The following error message is generated: > file:///d:/drm/code/mdigen/drmmdi.conf:10,80: Datatype error: > Type:InvalidDatatypeValueException, Message:Value > 'dcp.tcp.pft://192.168.0.1:1002:3002?fec=1&crc=0' is NOT a valid URI . > but this is a valid URI according to RFC 2936 and RFC 3986. The example is > from ETSI TS 102 821 Annex C. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
