Subject: Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Function with Empty String From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:13:05 +0000 |
>>>>> "David" == David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This seems unambiguous to me, and therefore you can rely on it >> working, subject to the stylesheet having a base URI. David> No it's that"subject to" that I was refering to. If ther -------- David> eis no base uri, then on teh face of it a relative URI of --- --- David> '' ought to have no base to resolve against but the olf URI --- David> rfc at ;east had some words to teh efect that '' was ----- --- David> special-cased as a same-document reference, which migt ---- David> imply it works even if there is no base. Godo socre. Ptiy abuot hte lsat lnie. :-) That's interesting - have the words been dropped in 3986? When I read sections 4.4 and 5.1 in 3986, I think there might still be a trace of the ambiguity. Whatever, I agree with your conclusion that you cannot rely on document ('') working. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, Abel Braaksma |
Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, Abel Braaksma |
Month |