W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2014

[Bug 25919] unparsed-text-023 should not expect a static error

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 19:28:30 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25919-523-h5iCBPS79u@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25919

--- Comment #8 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> ---
(In reply to Josh Spiegel from comment #
> I don't think this is the intended interpretation. fn:static-base-uri also
> depends on the static base URI:
> 
> "The function returns the value of the Static Base URI property from the
> static context. If the property is absent, the empty sequence is returned."
> 
> The function depends on the static base URI yet it can still be evaluated
> when the static base URI is undefined. (Assuming absent == undefined)
> 
> And then there is fn:resolve-uri:
> 
> "The first form of this function resolves $relative against the value of the
> base-uri property from the static context. A dynamic error is raised
> [err:FONS0005] if the base-uri property is not initialized in the static
> context."
> 
> This also implies the function is evaluated even when the static base uri is
> undefined.  (Assuming absent == undefined == not initialized)

This is starting to look a bit messy.  XQuery 3.0: An XML Query Language says:

"It is not intrinsically an error if this process fails to establish an
absolute base URI; however, the Static Base URI property is then absentDM30
[err:XPST0001]. When the Static Base URI property is absentDM30, any attempt to
use its value to resolve a relative URI reference will result in an error
[err:XPST0001]."

which seems to contradict F&O.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 19:28:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:56 UTC