24050 2013-12-10 14:26:08 +0000 [XT3TS] Invalid test package-901 2015-05-06 21:19:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XSLT 3.0 Test Suite Working drafts PC Windows NT CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 vitaliy.yudenkov abel.online abel.braaksma public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 97394 0 vitaliy.yudenkov 2013-12-10 14:26:08 +0000 The test verifies that required @name attribute is defined. But according to the working draft @name attribute is optional, and must be defined only in the case when package will be used by other package. The test should probably be removed. 97560 1 abel.braaksma 2013-12-13 00:42:57 +0000 Hmm, if I recall correctly, it became optional to allow the principal stylesheet to be a package-in-disguise, otherwise the hidden xsl:package element above xsl:stylesheet would require a name, which is redundant. When a package is used by the principal stylesheet, it is in effect used by a package (disguised as the principal stylesheet). Hence, once the @name attribute isn't there, a package cannot be used by either another package that has the xsl:package declaration, or by a stylesheet, that has an xsl:package declaration implicitly. That being said, if an unnamed package is semantically equivalent with a stylesheet having xsl:stylesheet at its root, would it be allowed with xsl:import/include? 97563 2 abel.braaksma 2013-12-13 01:27:07 +0000 Correction on the previous comment: the current rules state that only stylesheets containing one ore more xsl:package declarations will be a "simplified package". And Vitaliy is correct in that the @name attribute is optional, so test package-901 can be removed or updated. 119008 3 abel.braaksma 2015-03-28 16:09:49 +0000 Fixed by renaming test to package-002 and expecting non-error outcome. 120188 4 abel.braaksma 2015-05-06 21:19:35 +0000 Was resolved > 30 days ago, closing.