[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Question regarding ODF 1.2 CD05 part 3 - path of the package root
The manifest:full-path attribute value is not a URI. (Michael convinced me of that some time ago.) For files that are in the package, it is the same as the name in the Zip directory entry. For manifest:full-path value "/" and for ones that identify subdocuments, there are no corresponding Zip directory entries. The use of "./mumble" and "mumble" in URIs are no different. The manifest:full-path and the Zip directory entries should just be "mumble". The "./" is irrelevant with regard to relative URIs and is presumably stripped by clients under ordinary conditions (since clients always form absolute URIs in making network requests, etc.). (One hazard of using "./" forms is that tracing it may require a genuine base URI and that is a problem for URIs used internal to packages.) Also, the use of "./mumble" in certain utilities and in shell commands to force a relative treatment and avoid path searches and also prevent confusion with internal commands and aliases has nothing to do with URIs and the rules stated in the applicable RFCs. Some usage of "relative" in the current ODF 1.2 CD05 Part 3 is without foundation (in that there is no definition for manifest:full-path that supports that usage). There are rules for forming absolute URIs by appending the manifest:full-path value to a base URI and also stripping away base URI when it is determined that the URI is a reference internal to the package (i.e., it is to be matched with a manifest:full-path value). This can be done without introducing "relative" at all with respect to the manifest:full-path value. I am not sure what the ODFDOM problem is. If you do exactly what Zip does, where it starts inside of a specific directory and includes the content of all subdirectories, you should have the correct paths, none of which start with "./". For the "root document" and for subdocuments, you need to add artificial <manifest:file-entry> elements and given them artificial manifest:full-path values, since there will be no Zip directory entries for any of those. It seems to me that the only reason for a subdocument entry is so it can be referenced as a unit in a URI from an XML document in the package and so it can have a manifest:media-type MIME-type value that indicates what the URI-reached material provides. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM [mailto:Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 09:16 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office] Question regarding ODF 1.2 CD05 part 3 - path of the package root ODF 1.2 part 3 4.8.4 manifest:full-path "The attribute value "/" denotes a manifest entry for the package itself." Does not all path of the manifest have to be a relative paths and therefore the path have to be "./" for the root document and the package itself? Stumbled over the problem during working on ODFDOM collecting the base directory of documents within a package. All directory paths are relative aside the one of the root document. Regards, Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]