Re: Test p:import #006

"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> Norman Walsh writes:
>
>> Hi Henry,
>>
>> Do you really expect this test
>>
>>   http://tests.xproc.org/tests/required/import-006.xml
>>
>> to succeed?
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
>> Our spec says:
>>
>>   If a pipeline or library author uses two different URI values that
>>   resolve to the same resource, they must not be considered the same
>>   imported library.
>
> Whoa!  That contradicts
>
>   In the absence of additional information outside the scope of this
>   specification within the resource, the base URI of the library is
>   always the URI of the actual resource returned. In other words, it
>   is the URI of the resource retrieved after all redirection has
>   occurred.
>
> plus
>
>   If the actual base URI is the same as one that has already been
>   processed, the implementation must recognize it as the same library
>   and should not need to process the resource.
>
> !
>
> Indeed the whole paragraph from which _your_ quote is drawn appears to
> me to be self-contradictory:
>
>   A library is considered the same library if the URI of the resource
>   retrieved is the same. If a pipeline or library author uses two
>   different URI values that resolve to the same resource, they must
>   not be considered the same imported library.
>
> I think that 'not' is just wrong!

I'm persuaded if the rest of the WG is persuaded. I'm not sure that
every implementation will always be able to *tell* in every case that
the same resource has been returned. But I suppose if it can't tell,
that's not its fault.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | How can there be laughter, how can
http://nwalsh.com/            | there be pleasure, when the world is
                              | burning?--The Dhammapada (probably 3rd
                              | century BC)