- From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:24:25 -0700
- To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, <w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-cg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Hi James, I think the problem is broader than just the undefinedness of comparisons to namespace URIs. It is possible (e.g. with Michael Kay's saxon) to use different processors to parse an XSLT and its input. Therefore, it is at least conceivable that if the input document uses relative URIs, then element matching will not work. For example, suppose the XSLT processor absolutizes URIs and the input processor doesn't. Then the input: <Signature xmlns="../foo"/> will not be matched by <xsl:template xmlns:ds="../foo" match="ds:Signature"> ... </xsl:template> Regards, John Boyer Development Team Leader, Distributed Processing and XML PureEdge Solutions Inc. Creating Binding E-Commerce v: 250-479-8334, ext. 143 f: 250-479-3772 1-888-517-2675 http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/> -----Original Message----- From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of James Clark Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 9:53 PM To: w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org Cc: w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org; w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org; w3c-xml-cg@w3.org; w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Subject: Wording of XPath relative namespace URI errata The currently proposed wording for the XPath errata dealing with relative namespace URIs at [1] (under Section 5 and Section 5.4) says in effect that relative namespace URIs can get munged in an implementation-dependent way; however, XPath expressions can still be well-defined on a document containing relative namespace URIs, provided that the evaluation of the expressions doesn't depend on the value of any relative namespace URIs. However, the wording suggested by [2] would make for a broader undefinedness: in effect, the behaviour of the entire spec when there are relative namespace URIs becomes undefined. The wording here is suggested for "new" specifications, which doesn't appear to cover the XPath errata. My question is: does anybody think the XPath wording should be changed to use a wording similar to [2]? James [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2000Sep/att-0068/01-xpath-er rata.htm [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xppa#47802880
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2000 19:24:25 UTC