[Bug 25963] New: [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 25963] New: [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25963

            Bug ID: 25963
           Summary: [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Working drafts
          Hardware: PC
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSLT 3.0
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
        QA Contact: [hidden email]

The spec says that the default for the second argument of resolve-uri() is
effectively static-base-uri(). But static-base-uri() can return an empty
sequence (if the static base uri is absent), while resolve-uri() does not
accept an empty sequence here, and instead is defined to raise an error if
there's no static base URI.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 25963] [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25963

Abel Braaksma <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #1 from Abel Braaksma <[hidden email]> ---
Considering the title of this bug, should this not have a component
specification of F&O?

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 25963] [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25963

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
The editor was asked to propose a resolution. The proposed resolution is to
replace the rule

If the second argument is absent, the effect is the same as calling the
two-argument function with the value of fn:static-base-uri() as the second
argument.

by

If the second argument is absent, the effect is as follows:

* if the static base URI property in the static context is non-absent, it is
used as the effective value of the second argument

* otherwise, a dynamic error [FORG0002] is reported.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 25963] [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25963

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
Accepted with the caveat that if the first arg is an absolute URI,
resolve-uri() should succeed even if there is no known base URI.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 25963] [f+o 3.0] default second argument for resolve-uri()

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25963

--- Comment #4 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
The changes have been applied.

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