- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 08:31:14 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19597 --- Comment #11 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> --- (In reply to comment #10) > For the test case "prohibit-module-1-s", I would propose to add XQST0059 as > potential result, as the option declaration may be evaluated after the > import of the module, thus yielding a "module not found" parsing error (and, > as far as I have seen, the spec. does not require that the options are > evaluated in a separate compiler step). As an alternative, the query could > be modified to point to an existing module. Personal opinion follows. The line declare option prohibit-feature "module"; means that the implementation must act "... as though the feature were not implemented... " I can't see how an implementation which did not implement the module feature would attempt to resolve a module, and thus it would never raise XQST0059. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 08:31:17 UTC