1856 2005-08-18 11:20:45 +0000 [F&O] Error FORG0009 seems redundant 2007-02-25 23:41:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Functions and Operators 1.0 Last Call drafts All All CLOSED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 colin ashok.malhotra public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 5437 0 colin 2005-08-18 11:20:45 +0000 I do not believe it is possible for this error to occur. Because of: "If $relative is an absolute URI reference, it is returned unchanged." "If $relative or $base is not a valid xs:anyURI an error is raised [err:FORG0002].", both $relative and $base are guarenteed to be valid URIs before the resolution process starts, and relative is guarenteed to be a relative URI. In which case, resolution cannot fail. 5439 1 mike 2005-08-18 12:03:46 +0000 I think we put this in deliberately. IIRC, you raised an interesting point previously about non-hierarchic URIs (for example, URNs); we were also concerned about the fact that the xs:anyURI type embraces IRIs, whereas the URI resolution algorithms in RFC2396 and RFC3986 only cover URIs. We therefore decided to leave the spec a little open-ended as to exactly which resolution algorithm is used, and this also leaves open the possibility that such a resolution algorithm is not defined over the entire domain of the xs:anyURI type. Also, 3986 says that the base URI must be absolute, so if you use that algorithm then you would probably expect to get FORG0009 if you supply a non-absolute base URI. We came to the conclusion that there's a lot of fuzziness in the infrastructure here, and it's not our remit to sort it out. Michael Kay 5440 2 colin 2005-08-18 12:58:48 +0000 Fair enough. but I'm intrigued about your point on a non-absolute base URI being supplied. The spec says that the function expects it to be absolute. So I was checking this first, and raising FORG0002 if this is not the case. I guess this depends upon the wording "expects". To me, if a function "expects" an argument to be X, then it is an error if it is not an X (in which case FORG0002 is the most appropriate message). And if it doesn't mean that, then I'm at a loss to know why it is mentioned at all. If it is intended to allow a relative base for use with algorithms other than RFC 3986, then I think the word expects should be dropped (or perhaps: "expects $base to usually be .." In which case, I would raise FORG0009 without attempting resolution, as I use the RFC 3986 algorithm. 6504 3 ashok.malhotra 2005-09-27 15:46:04 +0000 The WGs decided on 9/27 to close this bug with the follwing resolution. 1. Replace the first sentence of the summary with "The purpose of this function is to enable a relative URI to be resolved against a absolute URI." 2. Convert the remainder of the summary into rules and add to the two existing rules. 14136 4 jim.melton 2007-02-25 23:41:23 +0000 Closing bug because commenter has not objected to the resolution posted and more than two weeks have passed.