jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From niko...@ukr.net
Subject Re: Re: Jackrabbit 2.0: LocalName grammar question.
Date Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:11:53 GMT
>>    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
name  
>  
>Yes.  
>  
>>(§3.2.5.1 Expanded form)?  
>  
>The expanded form would be  
>  "{}{my}NodeName"  
>  
>>    Expanded form is defined as: ExpandedName ::= '{' Namespace '}' LocalName.
 
>>  
>>    I mean would it be parsed as:  
>>    namespace = ''  
>>    localname = '{my}NodeName'  
>>    or:  
>>    namespace = 'my'  
>>    localname = 'NodeName'  
>>    ...  
>  
>As "my" is not a syntactically legal namespace name, the parser would consider it part
of a local name.  
>  
>As far as I recall :-)  
>  
>BR, Julian  
  
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).  
  
So this path segment may be parsed as:  
  
1. qualifiedName, where prefix="" (empty prefix notation that should be written without ":")
and localName="{my:favourite}jackrabbit"  
2. expandedName, where uri="my:favourite" and localname="jackrabbit"  
  
How would it be parsed? Can I really use "{my:favorite}jackrabbit" as node name with empty
prefix?  
  

Mime
View raw message