[Bug 19626] [XQ30] Awkward option declarations

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19626

--- Comment #3 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> ---
Additionally, I don't find this construct particularly intuitive.

Without a detailed reading of the specification, I'd expect:

      declare option prohibit-feature "higher-order-function";
      declare option require-feature "all-optional-features";

either 

a) to complain that the higher-order-function feature is both prohibited and
required (since higher-order-function is in the set of all optional features),
OR
b) to disable the higher-order-function feature and then re-enable it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.