[Bug 11561] New: Static base URI: development location or deployment location?

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11561

           Summary: Static base URI: development location or deployment
                    location?
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Working drafts
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XPath 3.0
        AssignedTo: jonathan.robie@redhat.com
        ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


(Raised against XPath though the problem really only surfaces in XQuery and
XSLT)

We use the base URI in the static context for two distinct purposes.

It is used to resolve relative URIs in constructs such as "import module",
"import schema", "xsl:include", and "xsl:import-schema". Here the usage is at
compile time, and the expectation is that the base URI is (by default) the
location of the source code in the programmer's development environment.

And then it is used in the semantics of expressions such as doc() and
resolve-uri(), where the expectation is that it refers to the location from
which the stylesheet or query was loaded in the execution environment - what we
might call the deployment location.

In most real scenarios the development location and deployment location will be
different.

There are some cases in our specs where it's not obvious which location we
really mean. How should relative collation URIs be resolved, for example? Can I
use the development location, or should I use the deployment location?

I would propose adding a note where we introduce the concept of base URI in the
static context that informally points out the existence of these two
interpretations and that therefore the "static base URI" used at execution time
is not necessarily the same as that used at compile time.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:16:43 UTC