RE: [F&O] fn:resolve-uri and non-hierarchical base URI

Rereading RFC 3986 it seems clear that relative URIs and relative URI resolution
works only for hierarchical URI schemes.  It says ...

"Some URI schemes do not allow a hierarchical syntax matching the
   <hier_part> syntax, and thus cannot use relative references."

And, as Colin points out, the base URI needs to be an absolute URI.

Thus, it seems to me that all we need to change in fn:resolve-URI 
is to add the sentence from RFC 3986 quoted above. 

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Paul Adams [mailto:colin@colina.demon.co.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:31 AM
> To: K Karun
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org; Ashok Malhotra
> Subject: Re: [F&O] fn:resolve-uri and non-hierarchical base URI
> 
> >>>>> "Karun" == K Karun <k.karun@oracle.com> writes:
> 
>     Karun>   The WGs discussed your comment at the Brisbane F2F and
>     Karun> decided that no changes are required to the F&O
>     Karun> specification, as RFC 2396bis handles resolution against
> 
> Note, this is now RFC 3986. Accordingly, a change is needed - 
> to replace the reference to RFC 2396 with a reference to RFC 3986.
> 
>     Karun> non-hierarchical URIs. In addition, the error FORG0009 will
>     Karun> be removed, as RFC 2396bis also handles resolution against
>     Karun> relative URIs.
> 
> Then are you removing the requirement for $base to be an absolute URI?
> Anyway, I cannot see anything in RFC 3986 to handle 
> resolution against a relative URI.
> In section 5.  Reference Resolution, it says:
> 
> "  The term "relative" implies that a "base URI" exists against which
>    the relative reference is applied.  Aside from fragment-only
>    references (Section 4.4), relative references are only 
> usable when a
>    base URI is known.  A base URI must be established by the parser
>    prior to parsing URI references that might be relative.  A base URI
>    must conform to the <absolute-URI> syntax rule (Section 4.3)."
> 
>     Karun>   I hope this resolves your comment satisfactorily.
> 
> Not entirely.
> --
> Colin Paul Adams
> Preston Lancashire
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 23:09:11 UTC