- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 13:28:29 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27300 --- Comment #2 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- > and it cannot be used by any other package because it has no package name. Sorry, but this seems not true, at least not in the current Draft. After the change to make xsl:stylesheet/transform a synonym for an (implicit) xsl:package, we allowed xsl:use-package as a child of xsl:stylesheet (I think, but recollection can be wrong). This is reflected in the current draft: xsl:use-package Model: <xsl:use-package name = uri package-version? = string > <!-- Content: (xsl:accept | xsl:override)* --> </xsl:use-package> Permitted parent elements: xsl:package xsl:package xsl:stylesheet xsl:transform Under xsl:stylesheet/transform we say: * <!-- Content: (declarations) --> and, remarkably, or deliberately (?), xsl:use-package is not marked as a declaration per se. However, I also see in the XSLT 3.0 public LCWD: - Bug 24438: Drop support for xsl:use-package as a child of xsl:stylesheet. And, bug 26468 seems to reflect that xsl:use-package is not allowed, quote: "xsl:package has the same content model as xsl:stylesheet/transform, with the addition that it allows xsl:expose and xsl:use-package elements to appear as children" Tentative conclusion: the "permitted parent elements" is incorrect, as text and other bug reports, and comment#1 above indicate otherwise. In addition, we say: [Definition: The content of the xsl:package element is referred to as the package manifest]. Should we somehow make explicit, through a NOTE or otherwise, that an *implicit* package is not considered a package manifest by that definition? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 1 December 2014 13:28:30 UTC