jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jackrabbit 2.0: LocalName grammar question.
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:35:53 GMT
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Jukka Zitting<jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

unfortunately we don't. the issue will probably be addressed in a
maintenance draft.

cheers
stefan

>
> 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