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 30173 - [xslt30] xsl:global-context-item - missing error code
Summary: [xslt30] xsl:global-context-item - missing error code
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSLT 3.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Proposed Recommendation
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Kay
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-08-30 09:50 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2017-10-29 23:22 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Michael Kay 2017-08-30 09:50:52 UTC 
There appears to be no error code prescribed for the case where xsl:global-context-item specifies use="required", and no global context item is supplied.

We also seem to be missing a test case for this condition.
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2017-08-30 09:55:50 UTC 
I propose to use XTDE3086
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2017-08-30 10:09:20 UTC 
Test case glob-cxt-item-012 added
Comment 3 Abel Braaksma 2017-09-21 20:45:56 UTC 
Ha, you are right, and we raise XTTE0590. Perhaps it makes sense here?

   "A type error is signaled if there is a package with an xsl:global-context-
   item declaration specifying a required type that does not match the supplied 
   global context item. The error code is the same as for xsl:param: [see ERR 
   XTTE0590]."

We could say "...specifying a required type, or failing to provide a required item, that does not match..."

Sounds to me this should go into an erratum.

PS: any reason for that particular number? It seems very specific and there is no number in its vicinity (not that it matters much though).
Comment 4 Michael Kay 2017-10-13 20:17:50 UTC 
I chose the number because 3087 is used nearby.
Comment 5 Michael Kay 2017-10-19 16:44:03 UTC 
Erratum E6 has been drafted
Comment 6 Michael Kay 2017-10-29 23:22:54 UTC 
The erratum was approved.