Is it an error if the href and target options of p:file-move or p:file-copy are the same file?

[ndw]

I don't see a definitive answer in the spec, am I missing something? I guess it partly depends on how you interpret

It is a dynamic error (err:XC0050) the file or directory cannot be copied to the specified location.

I lean towards making it an error. You could argue that "doing nothing" qualifies as copying a file onto itself, but the semantics of moving a file onto itself are more complex. (Do you delete the original which is also the target? No probably not.) And in any event, no one is likely to do this on purpose so it's probably indicative of something having gone wrong. Better to raise an error before something worse happens.

[xml-project]

For p:file-copy XC0050 makes total sense to me.
For p:file-move I think it should be XC0115: Its a dynamic error if the resource referenced by the target option is an existing file or other file system object.
Does this make sense?

[ndw]

Yes. I forgot that we didn't have a replace option.

[xml-project]

After looking at the comments in my code: Do I remember right that there was a discussion about the file steps about action via result? Is the error raised iff the action cannot be performed or if the result couldn't be archived?
This might be relevant here:

• A file cannot be copied to itself -> Action not possible -> error.
• The intended result is that the content accessable via uri A should also be accessable via uri B. If A = B the result is present without doing anything -> no error

Does anyone remember this discussion, is it relevant here?

[ndw]

I'm afraid that doesn't ring any bells. This question arose because of a bug in my implementation. When I first thought about it, I was tempted to say that copying or moving file:///path/to/A to file:///path/to/A was trivially completed without doing anything. But I observed that the Unix copy and move commands don't work that way (not that we have to copy them, it was just the first example to hand), and I thought about it means to have a step that does that. I can imagine scenarios where it's explicitly what you intended, but it's a lot easier to imagine cases where it's indicative of some sort of error. Better to make the expert user work out that they have to not copy A onto A than to make the less experienced user confused by not failing when they've done something very, very unlikely to be what they intended. That's why I lean towards an error in this case.

[xml-project]

Thanks, Norm. I was not sure about this.

That's why I lean towards an error in this case.

+1