xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Delmelle <andreas.delme...@telenet.be>
Subject Re: The base of relative URIs in fop.xconf
Date Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:21:17 GMT
On 04 Feb 2011, at 17:40, Glenn Adams wrote:

<snip />
> so if one specifies
> file:///../fop.xml

If I understand correctly, while it does not violate the URI syntax, this would not be considered
a relative URI either way.
That is, java.net.URI will consider it absolute, because it has a scheme component (file://).

A URI is relative only if the scheme component is absent. An absolute file path starting at
the root is still a relative URI if it is not preceded by 'file://'. It can be resolved against
an absolute file: URI, but for other purposes also against an ftp:, http:... 

> if you are discussing the use of the Java URI class, this is another matter, but just
keep in mind that external specifications of the file URL should never have a relative path
for <path>, and all external specifications of the form file:///foo.bar refers to the
file foo.bar in the root directory (and not in relationship to some implied xml:base);

Very true, and that is exactly how java.net.URI.resolve() operates. If you call it on a URI
created for the string "file:///foo.bar", you will simply get the same absolute URI back,
no matter which URI you resolve against (xml:base, user-config base...).

That said, I believe the issue raised by Jeremias concerns the implicit resolution of relative
paths  against the current working directory (due to: new File(relativePath)), instead of
a possible absolute file URL (font-base?).



View raw message