|
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 |