12 May
2015
12 May
'15
3:51 a.m.
Hi,
That's correct Andy, that has changed some time ago, based on some feedback.
For what it's worth, in the implementation for Saxon and Calabash, I support both for a transitional period (if 'content' is there, that's the new model, if a dir with the package name exists, then that's the old format and I issue a warning but keep going, else it is a format error).
Regards,
--
Florent Georges
http://fgeorges.org/
http://h2oconsulting.be/
On 12 May 2015 at 09:30, Christian Grün wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for the hint. I will browse through the current and the older
> version of the spec in order to find out what else has changed.
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Andy Bunce bunce.andy@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It appears the EXPath package format has changed. The current version of the
>> spec reads:
>>
>> the root of the ZIP file contains a directory named content, containing the
>> components and any other file the package needs.
>>
>> http://expath.org/spec/pkg#descriptor
>>
>> A previous version http://expath.org/spec/pkg/20100107#d2e112 reads
>>
>> Alongside this descriptor, the root of the ZIP file contains a directory
>> named after the module name (see below) which contains the components and
>> any other file the package needs.
>>
>> BaseX appears only to support this earlier version. If a package using a
>> content folder is installed the following error is reported:
>>
>> [bxerr:BXRE0004] Package descriptor: Invalid attribute 'name'
>>
>> /Andy