W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > September 2008

Re: justify or remove aliases: base-uri, resolve-uri

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:16:09 -0500
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org, mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1221488169.6800.458.camel@pav.lan>

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:55 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jeni Tennison writes:
> 
> > On 15 Sep 2008, at 09:54, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> >> Dan Connolly writes:
> >>
> >>> Whether they are aliases of XPath 1.0 or XPath 2.0 functions
> >>> makes no difference; they're still aliases.
> >>
> >> I think perhaps you misunderstood.  There _is no_ XPath 1.0 function
> >> which has the relevant behaviour.  So we have defined an extension
> >> function _for XPath 1.0_ whose functionality is defined to be the
> >> XPath 1.0 equivalent of an XPath 2.0 function.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps Dan's point is that we should use the XPath 2.0 function
> > namespace (http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions) for those functions
> > rather than co-opting them into our own namespace.
> 
> I thought of that, but that's sort of wrong, isn't it?  The function
> we want is not actually/exactly the function whose name is
> http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions:base-uri,

Oh... that's certainly the impression I got from the spec:

"The semantics of this function are the same as the semantics of the
XPath 2.0 fn:base-uri() function."

>  because that is a
> function defined
> 
>   a) with input a node in an XPath 2 data model
>  and
>   b) value an xs:anyURI or NULL
> 
> whereas the function we are defining has 
> 
>   a) input an infoitem
>  and
>   b) output a string.

I didn't see that difference pointed out in the spec.
That would probably make sense as a justification.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 14:14:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:08 UTC