W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2003

RE: [F&O] 11.1, 7.3, 15.4.4, and 15.4.5

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:00:19 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB0846BE22@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Kian-Tat Lim" <ktl@ktlim.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

I'm sorry that we have not responded to your earlier mail.  Please be
assured that it has not been forgotten.  We are in the middle of a week
of W3C meeting so the response has been delayed.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kian-Tat Lim
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:54 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> 
> 
> [A formal comment, since no one seems to have paid
> attention to my previous message on this topic.]
> 
> Section 11.1 of "XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions
> and Operators" (F&O), describing fn:resolve-uri,
> states that the function "resolves the relative URI
> $relative against the base-uri $base and returns
> the resulting absolute URI".  It does not give
> an algorithm for doing so.  Since RFC 2396 is
> cited as a normative reference in section A.1,
> it would seem that the algorithm given there in
> section 5.2, "Resolving Relative References to
> Absolute Form", is the appropriate one for executing
> this function.
> 
> That algorithm states, in part:
> 
> For each URI reference, the following steps are performed in order:
> 
>     1) The URI reference is parsed into the potential four
>        components and fragment identifier, as described in
>        Section 4.3.
> 
>     2) If the path component is empty and the scheme, authority, and
>        query components are undefined, then it is a reference to the
>        current document and we are done.  Otherwise, [...]
> 
> In Appendix C of that RFC, "Examples of Resolving Relative
> URI References", Section C.2, "Abnormal Examples", states
> explicitly:
> 
>      An empty reference refers to the start of the current document.
>           <>            =  (current document)
> 
> Both of these appear to be in conflict with the last paragraph
> of F&O section 11.1 (before the Note), which states:
> 
>     If the $relativeURI is the zero-length string, returns the
>     value of the base-uri property from the static context in
>     the first form and $base in the second form.
> 
> Section 2.1.1 of "XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0" does not
> provide for the current document's URI in the static
> context, only an environment-specified base URI.
> 
> There appear to be two alternatives:
> 
> 1) Add text to section 11.1 stating that the URI resolution
> algorithm to be used differs from that in RFC 2396 in the
> case of a zero-length string $relativeURI, and that the
> base URI is the result instead of the current document's
> URI.
> 
> 2) Add the current document URI, when available, to the
> static context and return it instead of the base URI if
> $relativeURI is the zero-length string.
> 
> In either case, additional text highlighting the
> zero-length relative URI string case should be added to
> sections 7.3, 15.4.4, and 15.4.5, which each mention
> resolution of relative URIs with respect to base URIs.
> 
> Finally, a typo: section 15.4.4 of F&O specifies
> "fn:doc($uri as xs:string?) as document?", but its
> third paragraph begins "If $srcval is the empty
> sequence".  This should be replaced with "If $uri
> is the empty sequence".
> 
> --
> Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@ktlim.com, UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 12:00:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT