This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
There are currently three valid EQName tests in the EQName.xml file. I would like to see some more XPath tests is possible. Also, it would be helpful if some corner cases were tested, namely: 1) rogue "}" or "{" in the EQName 2) spaces in the URI 3) trailing/leading spaces in the URI (allowed, should be ignored) 4) illegal URI characters (which, if I understand the spec correctly, should not be treated as illegal) 5) relative URI (will not be resolved, but allowed) (this request follows from a lengthy discussion on EQName productions, most conclusions of which can be found here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-query/2016Jun/0068.html)
Created attachment 1647 [details] Updated test cases EQName (In reply to Abel Braaksma from comment #0) > There are currently three valid EQName tests in the EQName.xml file. I would > like to see some more XPath tests is possible. Done: in attachment there are now more XP30 tests > 1) rogue "}" or "{" in the EQName Done: see attachment > 2) spaces in the URI Done, see attachment > 3) trailing/leading spaces in the URI (allowed, should be ignored) Done, see attachment > 4) illegal URI characters (which, if I understand the spec correctly, should > not be treated as illegal) Done, see attachment. Note that apparently we may raise XQST0046 on an invalid URI, but the algorithm for doing so is very lenient (you must first escape all non-special characters, as written in XLink, only if it is still illegal, you can raise this). > 5) relative URI (will not be resolved, but allowed) Done, see attachment I think this also resolves Bug 29808 and Bug 29806.
Created attachment 1648 [details] (corrected) Updated test cases for EQName (see latest attachment, I accidentally submitted an older version)
I have seen more tests in CVS, and the incorrect ones I submitted have been fixed. I think this bug can now be closed.
Resolving this bug according to comment 3