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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:41 UTC