W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2006

[Bug 3447] xmlns="QNameXSD"

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:31:14 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GE0h8-0001vF-Tx@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #11 from davidc@nag.co.uk  2006-08-18 09:31 -------
(In reply to comment #10)

> Regarding Base-URI-16 and Base-URI-17, I am struggling a bit with those, any
> hints will be appreciated.
-16 has a base-uri specified of "". The relevant EBNF production here is
URILiteral and as discussed over in bug #3485 the XQuery spec is currently
inconsistent in whether that is allowed, or if it is allowed, what it means.
Assuming the resolution is that it is allowed, an empty URI reference should be
a document self-reference. But in any case this test probably needs to wait for
the resolution of 3485.

-17 has similar issues as to whether it's allowed to specify the non-absolute
uri in the input syntax, but in this case there is the additional problem that
(assuming the input is not a syntax error) the expected result file is wrong.
It expects "/" but the base URI is defined to be an _absolute_ URI so can not
be / the assumption (and the suggested resolution in bug #3485) is that a
relative URI should be resolved against the existing static base uri, which in
the case of reading the query from the file system results in a value something
This same comment applies to many of this series eg -11 has expected result
but again base-uri must always return an absolute URI so this can not be right,
xq2xsl returns
on this system which I believe is the correct result. In order to avoid such
system dependencies as the exact file path on which i happen to run the query,
the tests should use absolute URI.

> I do not see what is the problem with "Base-URI-22.xq".
There is nothing wrong with it, sorry. The list in comment #1 is all the uses
of URI literal where the value is not an absolute URI, but in the regex I used
to test for absolute uri I forgot to ignore leading white space looking down
the list it seems that this is the only one that is mis-reported in this way.
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 09:31:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:13 UTC