[Bug 28435] [XT30TS] resolve-uri-022

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28435

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
                 CC|                            |mike@saxonica.com
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
This test is basically a torture-test of edge cases in the RFC 3986
specification, especially the rules for removal of /./ and /../ segments in the
URI.

It seems that the Java implementation, which Saxon relies on, produces
different results in many cases. I would like to try and establish in which
cases these variations are actually acceptable. Given the rather casual
language of the spec, this isn't easy. However, there are comments in the test
like

<!-- variants of trying to get past the root, should return root path acc. to
RFC, and *must* include root path leading "/" -->

where the author of the test appears to have taken a view that some provisions
in the RFC are mandatory, and others are only recommendations. Note that the
spec for resolve-uri() explicitly states that where the RFC permits variations,
so does resolve-uri().

I think we should start by making sure that the test doesn't mandate particular
results for some of these edge cases in situations where the RFC allows
flexibility.

The language of the RFC is complex. It doesn't use simple "may", "must", and
"should". It will sometimes describe a particular behaviour as common in
practice, but erroneous. These are muddy waters, and I think we should allow
implementations the benefit of the doubt where necessary.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 31 July 2015 10:54:59 UTC