- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:13:54 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25919 --- Comment #4 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> --- (In reply to Josh Spiegel from comment #3) > Tim, thanks for the quick response. I see your point but I am not fully > convinced that the spec allows the success or failure of static > optimizations/checking to alter the semantics of the expression. At the extreme, in the case where the static base URI is known to be undefined, any use of a function which relies on the static base URI (doc, doc-avaiilable, unparsed-text etc.) might reasonably cause a (compile time) static error. Perhaps the question is whether a compiler should be able to avoid that static error (when it knows the argument is an absolute URI). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 15:13:55 UTC