- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:45:07 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20642
--- Comment #5 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> ---
> Is this what the issue is here?
No. My example was wrong. I meant to use "b.html" as one of the URIs. .NET
does indeed through a (rather obscure) error when trying to resolve this
against the URN. Just ignore all that!
The issue is how to determine what constitutes a non-hierarchic URI. I'm
guessing what Java identifies as Opaque URIs is one approximation. But I
suspect it really boils down to how any specific URI scheme has been defined -
and that's covered by scheme specific RFCs, not RFC 3986. In that sense, RFC
3986 isn't at all at fault.
Were we to add the test:
resolve-uri("b.html", "http:01234567890X")
what result would you expect?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 17:45:13 UTC