This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 3624 - unclear if modules-15 really should return XQST0088
Summary: unclear if modules-15 really should return XQST0088
Status: CLOSED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: XML Query Test Suite
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XML Query Test Suite (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andrew Eisenberg
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-08-24 06:04 UTC by Per Bothner
Modified: 2006-08-29 19:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Per Bothner 2006-08-24 06:04:25 UTC
The test modules-15 has an "expected-error" of XQST0088.
That is reasonable, but I'm not sure it follows from the spec.

err:XQST0088 is:
    It is a static error if the literal that specifies the target namespace in a module import is of zero length.

But the module import specifies a non-zero-length namespace.
The namespace is then mapped in the "module datebase"
(i.e. XQTSCatalog.xml) to TestSources/test2-lib.xq,
which starts out:
  module namespace test2="";

I.e. a zero-length namespace in the *module declaration*,
not in the module import.  There is no explicit requirement in
"4.2 Module Declaration" that the namespace by non-zero-length.
There may be an implicit requirement, of course.

If we go by the spec, the error should perhaps be XQST0059,
since in "4.11 Module Import" we have:
  "It is a static error [err:XQST0059] if the implementation
  is not able to process a module import by finding a valid
  module definition with the specified target namespace."

Or fix the specification.
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2006-08-24 09:00:26 UTC
The meaning of error code XQST0088 was extended by the resolution of bug #2460.

Michael Kay
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2006-08-24 09:03:12 UTC
Moreover, the resolution of bug #2460 appears to be correctly reflected in the 8 June 2006 edition of the spec.
Comment 3 Per Bothner 2006-08-24 15:40:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Moreover, the resolution of bug #2460 appears to be correctly reflected in the
> 8 June 2006 edition of the spec.

So it does.  My apologies.

In my defense let me point out that
http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/
lists the specification as
  Candidate Recommendation 3rd November 2005
and no news item lists the June edition(s).

Perhaps that could be fixed?

Should I resolve this bug, marking it as "fixed"
or perhaps "invalid"?
Comment 4 Andrew Eisenberg 2006-08-29 19:24:26 UTC
I'm going to mark this as invalid. I've requested that our public page reflect the new drafts of our CR documents.

Anticipating your acceptance of this resolution, I will also mark this bug report closed.