- From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:14:08 -0000
- To: "'Liam Quin'" <liam@w3.org>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
# # F&O currently provides limited access to URL resolution via # fn:document() (section 15.5.4). I think you are referring to URI dereferencing rather than resolution. We already have a resolve-uri() function that does URI resolution - this is purely a synactic manipulation of a relative URI and a base URI. # # There's no support for HTTP POST, nor for MIME parameters, # nor for query parameters. # # There's also no clear indication of a result code, nor access # to language or media type information, if available. # # If resolution fails, or if parsing the resulting resource # representation as XML fails, a fatal error is raised. # # In the absence of a try/catch mechanism, having URI resulution # failure be a fatal error means you can't probe for the existence # of a document. # # I propose that we supply a resolve-uri function, and that document() be # defined in terms of resolve-uri. This adds significant functionality to # XQuery without a large additional cost, because implementations already # have such a resolver. # The JAXP API defines a URIResolver that the user can supply to take a URI and return a document. Microsoft have imitated this in .NET with their XmlResolver class. This mechanism works perfectly well, and is abstracted in our definition that the context provides a mapping from URIs to documents. I think there are so many potential complexities in this area that this is the right way to do it: we shouldn't try to bring it back inside the boundary of the system. Michael Kay
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 18:14:12 UTC