5705 2008-05-20 21:46:08 +0000 Catalog003 indicates a problematic test case 2008-07-08 20:07:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Query Test Suite XML Query Test Suite unspecified PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 andrew.eisenberg frans.englich mike tim public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 20188 0 andrew.eisenberg 2008-05-20 21:46:08 +0000 Catalog003 checks to see that all error test cases have at least one expected error. This does not appear to be the case for K2-SeqExprCast-421. I believe that the scenario for this test case should be changed to standard. 20199 1 frans.englich 2008-05-21 08:30:31 +0000 Should be fixed in CVS. 20414 2 mike 2008-06-09 09:24:35 +0000 This test (K2-SeqExprCast-421) was previously catalogued as expecting error FORG0001. It's not clear to me why it has changed. The test is xs:anyURI("foo://") and it seems to me that "foo://" is indeed an invalid URI: RFC3986 states: When authority is not present, the path cannot begin with two slash characters ("//") The rule is less clearly expressed in RFC2396 (which is what Schema Part 2 actually references) but I think it's still there. 20802 3 frans.englich 2008-06-24 14:54:38 +0000 Ok, then http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5695 was resolved incorrectly. I changed back to the former. 20933 4 tim 2008-06-26 14:28:56 +0000 Sorry, I think foo:// is valid. Quoting the specification: hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty The scheme and path components are required, though the path may be empty (no characters). When authority is present, the path must either be empty or begin with a slash ("/") character. When authority is not present, the path cannot begin with two slash characters ("//"). These restrictions result in five different ABNF rules for a path (Section 3.3), only one of which will match any given URI reference. The following are two example URIs and their component parts: foo://example.com:8042/over/there?name=ferret#nose \_/ \______________/\_________/ \_________/ \__/ | | | | | scheme authority path query fragment | _____________________|__ / \ / \ urn:example:animal:ferret:nose So this is saying that: path-absolute path-rootless path-empty may not begin with '//'. path-abempty can begin with '//' even if the authority is the empty string - because the authority is still present. Note that the empty string is a valid authority (matching the 'reg-name' production). So foo:// is a valid URI with an empty authority and empty path. The '//' here is _not_ part of the path. Here's what Microsoft's .NET System.Uri class does with this... $ New-object Uri('foo://') AbsolutePath : / AbsoluteUri : foo:/// Authority : Host : HostNameType : Basic IsDefaultPort : True IsFile : False IsLoopback : True IsUnc : False LocalPath : / PathAndQuery : / Port : -1 Query : Fragment : Scheme : foo OriginalString : foo:// DnsSafeHost : IsAbsoluteUri : True Segments : {/} UserEscaped : False UserInfo : 20936 5 mike 2008-06-26 14:51:04 +0000 And this is what Java 5 (class java.net.URI) has to say about it: new URI("foo://") Exception in thread "main" java.net.URISyntaxException: Expected authority at index 6: foo:// These RFCs are a mess: intelligent implementors can interpret the phrase "when authority is present" in different ways. We're not trying to test URI class libraries, we should stick to cases that are uncontroversial. 20938 6 tim 2008-06-26 14:57:02 +0000 Interesting! Where can one get clarification on an RFC? 20940 7 frans.englich 2008-06-26 15:09:17 +0000 I agree, the test in CVS now accepts pretty much anything. 20941 8 tim 2008-06-26 15:20:22 +0000 Splendid! That'll kepp everyone happy :)