W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: xml-stylesheet issues--suggested resolutions

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:48:35 +0200
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uskwa9p2idj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:41:54 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> Having reviewed what Arbortext does [1] and (thanks to Henry)
> what Saxon does [2], embedded herein are my suggestions for
> clarifications to the Associating Stylesheets Rec [3].
> In general, we will need to decide if the various error
> cases are "it is an error (the xml-stylesheet processor
> may ignore the whole thing, may ignore what it doesn't
> understand and try to process the rest, etc.)" or "fatal
> xml-stylesheet error (a compliant xml-stylesheet processor
> must ignore the entire PI)" or "it is an error; the
> xml-stylesheet processor must recover by XXXX".
> In most cases, I'm tempted to say "is an error; the
> xml-stylesheet processor MAY ignore the entire PI; if
> it tries to recover, it SHOULD xxxx."  Thoughts?

I would prefer if for different errors it was either "is an error: MUST ignore the entire PI" or "is an error: MUST recover as follows: xxxx".

Are there any cases where one user agent would want to ignore the entire PI but another would want to recover? If there are, then I would prefer "is an error: MUST either ignore the entire PI or recover as follows: xxxx".

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0022
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0025
> [3] http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 10:49:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:40 UTC