5650 2008-04-22 12:23:29 +0000 xsl:function/(@required | @tunnel) 2008-04-25 10:12:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XSLT 2.0 Recommendation Other Linux CLOSED INVALID P2 normal --- 1 frans.englich mike public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 19898 0 frans.englich 2008-04-22 12:23:29 +0000 Whether the attributes "required" and "tunnel" are disallowed on xsl:function, and what do if present, I find a bit vague: * Tunnels are from my understanding not in anyway related to xsl:functions. But I don't find anything, not in "9.2 Parameters" or "10.3 Stylesheet Functions", that state xsl:function/xsl:param/@tunnel is disallowed or what error code to raise. * 9.2 Parameters states: "The optional required attribute may be used to indicate that a parameter is mandatory. This attribute may be specified for stylesheet parameters and for template parameters; it must not be specified for function parameters, which are always mandatory." but it isn't stated what error code to raise. This can be contrasted with for instance XTSE0760. 19900 1 mike 2008-04-22 12:44:02 +0000 Personal response. >I don't find anything, not in "9.2 Parameters" or "10.3 Stylesheet Functions", that state xsl:function/xsl:param/@tunnel is disallowed or what error code to raise. The last para of 9.2 states: "The optional tunnel attribute may be used to indicate that a parameter is a tunnel parameter. The default is no; the value yes may be specified only for template parameters." This implies that the value tunnel="no" is legal for a function parameter. If tunnel="yes" is specified, I would suggest raising XTSE0020: "an attribute ... contains a value that is not one of the permitted values for that attribute." >"The optional required attribute may be used to indicate that a parameter is mandatory. This attribute ... must not be specified for function parameters, which are always mandatory." but it isn't stated what error code to raise. I would suggest XTSE0010: "the content of [an] element does not correspond to the content that is allowed for the element." I don't dispute that it seems inconsistent to allow tunnel="no" while not allowing required="yes", nor that we are inconsistent about when we define specific error messages for a condition and when we fall back to general purpose error codes. But I don't think such inconsistencies can be classed as bugs in the spec. 19943 2 frans.englich 2008-04-25 10:12:20 +0000 Sounds sensible. This is too insignificant. I'm rejecting.