W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2005

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

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:55:21 -0800
To: Colin Paul Adams <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>, Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
CC: K Karun <k.karun@oracle.com>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050314085521525.00000000648@amalhotr-pc>

Colin:
Thank you for your notes and discussion on fn:resolve-uri.
The WGs discussed your comments on Feb. 28 and decided that
implementations shd have the freedom to use the algorithms
described in RFC 2396 or RFC 3986.  They decided not to specify
the process of uri-resolution too tightly but allow implementation
freedom in how they carried out the resolution.

Please read the revised description of the function in the Last Call
version of the F&O spec which is scheduled to appear early next month
and let us know if you are satisfied with the resolution.

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Paul Adams [mailto:colin@colina.demon.co.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:00 AM
> To: Michael Kay
> Cc: 'Ashok Malhotra'; 'K Karun'; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [F&O] fn:resolve-uri and non-hierarchical base URI
> 
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk> writes:
> 
>     >> It is clear, I think. There is nothing that says that the
>     >> xml:base attribute value must be absolute, therefore it can be
>     >> relative.  But the infoset says that the [bas URI] property is
>     >> determined according to XML Base, and this says that the base
>     >> URI of an element is the value of the xml:base attribute if it
>     >> is present. so this property can be a relative URI that needs
>     >> resolving.
>     >> 
>     >> Now fn:resolve-uri (first form) uses the base URI property from
>     >> the static context, which is defined to be an absolute URI.
> 
>     Michael> But the common use case for resolve uri is
> 
>     Michael> resolve-uri(@href, base-uri(.))
> 
>     Michael> so we need to ensure that base-uri(.) delivers an
>     Michael> absolute URI.
> 
> I agree with this 100%.
> 
>     Michael> We could do this either by saying that the
>     Michael> base-uri() function takes the base-uri property of the
> 
> I assume you mean the dm:base-uri accessor value - not the 
> infoset property (currently the data model defines the two to 
> be the same).
> 
>     Michael> node and, if it is relative, resolves it recursively; or
>     Michael> we could say that the base-uri property of the node is
>     Michael> the pre-resolved absolute value.
> 
> You can't re-define the infoset property, so I guess you 
> again mean the dm:base-uri accessor value. Or am I missing 
> something? I can't find any data-model property values.
> --
> Colin Paul Adams
> Preston Lancashire
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 16:56:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:37 GMT