W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2013

[Bug 21719] Tests on require-feature/prohibit-feature

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 15:20:06 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-21719-523-nQldamnyte@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21719

O'Neil Delpratt <oneil@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from O'Neil Delpratt <oneil@saxonica.com> ---
Bugs fixed and committed to cvs. Please see below for comments on the test
cases.

(In reply to comment #0)
> - well-formed-feature-2:
>   This test case should also allow XQST0123 as result, because "qname" is no
>   valid feature. As an alternative, the feature string could be reduced to
>   "not:a:qname"

Fixed 
> 
> - well-formed-feature-4:
>   I would have expected XPST0081 as error

Fixed already by Tim some time ago
> 
> - require-prohibit-1:
>   XQST0120 should also be accepted here

I am rejecting this proposed change. I would think that during the static
checking phase duplicates and clashing features would be caught.  If you
disagree please feel free to re-open the bug.

> 
> - require-prohibit-3:
>   The current specification says that the "Serialization Feature does
>   not have a feature name, and cannot be required or prohibited in a
> module.",
>   so this test should probably return XQST0123 instead.

Test has been removed

> 
> - require-prohibit-5:
>   XQST0120 should also be accepted here

I am rejecting this proposed change. I would think that during the static
checking phase duplicates and clashing features would be caught.  If you
disagree please feel free to re-open the bug.

> 
> - require-all-optional-features-5-s:
>   I would suggest to also add XQST0128 as correct result, because the
>   spec says that a) "it is a static error [err:XQST0128] if a feature name
>   that an implementation supports appears in a prohibit-feature option
>   declaration and the implementation is unable to disable the feature" and
>   b) "all-optional-features corresponds to the set of all named features that
>   correspond to features listed in 5.2 Optional Features"

This test looks to have been fixed already

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:20:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:43 UTC