RE: (non-) Executable packages vs abstract

I see now that we introduced visibility="absent" on xsl:accept [1] and found it in the text under xsl:accept as well.

That leaves the (slight) ambiguity of the paragraph below. I propose to add something along the lines: "unless the component is accepted with visibility "absent"", which will make the package executable (but of course, you still cannot call the components).

I would (also) like to propose to make "executable package" a term, as it is used in the text below as something rather special and definitive. We may also introduce the reverse, an "abstract package" (analogous to how many languages call their classes as a whole "abstract" when it contains one or more abstract methods).


[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2013Mar/0005.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Braaksma [mailto:abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:45 AM
> To: Public XSLWG
> Subject: (non-) Executable packages vs abstract
> 
> While trying to understand the implications of Bug 29210, I stumbled upon
> the following line in 3.5.3.3 (just after error XTSE3060):
> 
> <quote>
> A package is executable if and only if it contains no component whose
> visibility is abstract. A package that is not executable is not a stylesheet, and
> therefore cannot be nominated as the stylesheet to be used when initiating
> a transformation.
> </quote>
> 
> And the following Note:
> 
> <quote>
> In other words, if a component is declared as abstract, then some package
> that uses the declaring package of that component directly or indirectly must
> override that component with one that is not abstract. It is not necessary for
> the override to happen in the immediately using package.
> </quote>
> 
> I can't directly recall the decision or find it in the spec, but I believe we have,
> at some point, allowed abstract components to exist, as long as these
> components are not used. As such, I think this line is a remnant from an
> earlier cleaning up and should be removed.
> 
> Reported first to the list as I'm not sure, if you agree it is a bug, I will report it
> as bug so it can be tracked.
> 
> Cheers,
> Abel

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 20:32:17 UTC