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: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:05:32 +0200
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.usmgnfh3idj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:30:54 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

>> 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".
>
> We should certainly discuss this.  My feeling is that too
> many MUSTs just means a lot of implementations will remain
> non-compliant.

Why would they remain non-compliant?


> In particular, few implementations that
> currently accept a certain PI will want to change their
> behavior to ignore it--their uses would reasonably be
> upset that things that used to work suddenly stopped working.

Then specify recovery behavior.


> Remember that SHOULD implies that an implementation needs
> to have a "good reason" to do otherwise (where "good reason"
> is, of course, undefined), so while an implementation isn't
> non-compliant if it does otherwise, there is still some force
> of standardization to follow the recommendation.

In practice, SHOULDs are not covered by a testsuite.


> We can decide for each case what wording to use, but especially
> given the history/legacy involved in this situation as well
> as the fact the browsers are notoriously prone to be lenient
> in what they accept, I fear we'd just lose credibility if we
> said MUST in too many places.

Well, I would argue that the XML Core WG would *gain* credibility if it specified error handling with MUST requirements. :-) But the reason for my suggestion is another: the outcome is more likely to be interoperable implementations.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2009 07:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 19 April 2009 07:06:18 GMT