3624 2006-08-24 06:04:25 +0000 unclear if modules-15 really should return XQST0088 2006-08-29 19:24:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Query Test Suite XML Query Test Suite unspecified PC Linux CLOSED INVALID P2 normal --- 1 per andrew.eisenberg public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 11256 0 per 2006-08-24 06:04:25 +0000 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. 11258 1 mike 2006-08-24 09:00:26 +0000 The meaning of error code XQST0088 was extended by the resolution of bug #2460. Michael Kay 11259 2 mike 2006-08-24 09:03:12 +0000 Moreover, the resolution of bug #2460 appears to be correctly reflected in the 8 June 2006 edition of the spec. 11260 3 per 2006-08-24 15:40:06 +0000 (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"? 11309 4 andrew.eisenberg 2006-08-29 19:24:26 +0000 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.