Re: Re: Jackrabbit 2.0: LocalName grammar question.

[ni...@ukr.net]

>>    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?  
  

Re: Re: Jackrabbit 2.0: LocalName grammar question.

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

2009/9/1  <ni...@ukr.net>:
> 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).

"{my:favorite}jackrabbit" is not a valid local name as it contains the
':' character.

BR,

Jukka Zitting