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

[Bug 1856] [F&O] Error FORG0009 seems redundant

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:58:48 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1E5jyq-0006cJ-Su@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1856





------- Additional Comments From colin@colina.demon.co.uk  2005-08-18 12:58 -------
Fair enough.

but I'm intrigued about your point on a non-absolute base URI being supplied.
The spec says that the function expects it to be absolute.
So I was checking this first, and raising FORG0002 if this is not the case.

I guess this depends upon the wording "expects". To me, if a function "expects"
an argument to be X, then it is an error if it is not an X (in which case
FORG0002 is the most appropriate message).

And if it doesn't mean that, then I'm at a loss to know why it is mentioned at all.
If it is intended to allow a relative base for use with algorithms other than
RFC 3986, then I think the word expects should be dropped (or perhaps: "expects
$base to usually be .."
In which case, I would raise FORG0009 without attempting resolution, as I use
the RFC 3986 algorithm.
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 12:58:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:07 UTC