jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jackrabbit 2.0: LocalName grammar question.
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:30:10 GMT
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@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 how would it be
>> translated?
>
> I think the *intent* was to treat "{}foo" as a local name of "{}foo", and to
> consider the expanded notation of "foo" to be "foo".

Agreed, that is also in line with how the empty namespace is handled
in the qualified form.

However, the current implementation in Jackrabbit (and the JCR 2.0 RI
candidate) follows the exact wording of the spec and parses "{}foo" to
("", "foo").

> I'm not sure whether this is clear from the spec; somebody should check :-)

I filed an issue about this to the JSR 283 expert group, though I'm
not sure if we still have time to change the spec before it's final.

If this isn't changed, then names like ("", "{}foo") can not be used
in prefixed form, and should always be expressed in the expanded form
"{}{}foo".

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message