This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
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.
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?
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.
Fixed by renaming test to package-002 and expecting non-error outcome.
Was resolved > 30 days ago, closing.