- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:51:17 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3485 ------- Comment #6 from davidc@nag.co.uk 2006-09-13 12:51 ------- I see you've responded to bug #3486, so I think that means that the only case that would be left undefined would be namespace uri Could the specification clarify whether the following is in error, and if not in error, what the namespaces of the elements x and y are? to be specific: declare base-uri "data:,x"; declare default element namespace "abc/123"; <x> <y xmlns="xyz"/> </x> Currently saxon gives no error and produces <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <x xmlns="abc/123"> <y xmlns="xyz"/> </x> I wouldn't object to that being the specified behaviour although acording to a w3c directive that "revised" the interpretation of the namespaces spec, such an xml document has undefined behaviour and shouldn't be assigned definite semantics, so XQuery might want to make relative uri namespaces explictly an error, or undefined, and may want to state explictly that they are _not_ resolved against the base uri in the static context (unlike all other uses of uriliteral) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Sep/0083.html and namespaces 1.1 which rather commits xpath2 (at least) to not doing much with relative uri namespace literals. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#iri-use This deprecation of relative URI references was decided on by a W3C XML Plenary Ballot Relative URI deprecation]. It also declares that "later specifications such as DOM, XPath, etc. will define no interpretation for them". David
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 12:51:23 UTC