- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 19:28:30 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25919 --- Comment #8 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> --- (In reply to Josh Spiegel from comment # > I don't think this is the intended interpretation. fn:static-base-uri also > depends on the static base URI: > > "The function returns the value of the Static Base URI property from the > static context. If the property is absent, the empty sequence is returned." > > The function depends on the static base URI yet it can still be evaluated > when the static base URI is undefined. (Assuming absent == undefined) > > And then there is fn:resolve-uri: > > "The first form of this function resolves $relative against the value of the > base-uri property from the static context. A dynamic error is raised > [err:FONS0005] if the base-uri property is not initialized in the static > context." > > This also implies the function is evaluated even when the static base uri is > undefined. (Assuming absent == undefined == not initialized) This is starting to look a bit messy. XQuery 3.0: An XML Query Language says: "It is not intrinsically an error if this process fails to establish an absolute base URI; however, the Static Base URI property is then absentDM30 [err:XPST0001]. When the Static Base URI property is absentDM30, any attempt to use its value to resolve a relative URI reference will result in an error [err:XPST0001]." which seems to contradict F&O. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 19:28:33 UTC