- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 07:53:08 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29981 Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl --- Comment #1 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- Interesting. I am not sure the current rules for tunnel parameters are 100% complete. The only case I could find related to existing/non-existing tunnel parameters is this: "If a tunnel parameter is declared in an xsl:param element with the attribute tunnel="yes", then a dynamic error occurs [see ERR XTDE0700] if the set of tunnel parameters passed to the template does not include a parameter with a matching expanded QName." And this seems at odds with our other statement: "All other options of xsl:with-param and xsl:param are available with tunnel parameters just as with non-tunnel parameters. For example, parameters may be declared as mandatory or optional,...." Since the first statement requires a parameter to be passed (same as required="yes") and the second statement allows you to specify required="yes" and required="no". Suppose you have the following: <xsl:template match="foo"> <xsl:param tunnel="yes" select="12" name="count" /> </xsl:template> This tunnel parameter has a default. But if the template is entered and there is no such tunnel parameter, we need to raise XTDE0700. If this is intentional, then having a default value is redundant. But I think this is not intentional. But, if we change this: <xsl:template match="foo"> <!-- explicitly required --> <xsl:param tunnel="yes" name="foo" required="yes" /> <!-- implicitly required --> <xsl:param tunnel="yes" name="bar" as="xs:integer" /> </xsl:template> This suggests that *if* the template is hit, it is required, but it already was required per XTDE0700. So, conversely, this is redundant given the current reading of this error. I may be misinterpreting this part of the spec, but I would assume that some tightening up may be needed. Without this cleared up, it will be hard to give an informed decision on your point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2016 07:53:20 UTC