- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:42:57 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24050
Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl
--- Comment #1 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
Hmm, if I recall correctly, it became optional to allow the principal
stylesheet to be a package-in-disguise, otherwise the hidden xsl:package
element above xsl:stylesheet would require a name, which is redundant.
When a package is used by the principal stylesheet, it is in effect used by a
package (disguised as the principal stylesheet). Hence, once the @name
attribute isn't there, a package cannot be used by either another package that
has the xsl:package declaration, or by a stylesheet, that has an xsl:package
declaration implicitly.
That being said, if an unnamed package is semantically equivalent with a
stylesheet having xsl:stylesheet at its root, would it be allowed with
xsl:import/include?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 00:42:58 UTC