W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Charter

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:57:15 -0500
To: "public-xml-er\@w3.org" <public-xml-er@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2ehtvj2ec.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> writes:
> I'm less sure about this one. I see where you're coming from but I
> would hesitate to add it at the charter level where it becomes binding
> for all eternity.

I share some of Robin's concerns. And additionally, the concern that
I'm nor sure how to report the difference. On the one hand, I'm
perfectly happy to wait until we've worked out what the algorithm is
and see how we feel then. On the other hand, if what we're saying is
that an API that performs XML-ER parsing must have a mechanism for
reporting whether it did recover, I think that's ok. But that's kind
of a cheat since we haven't yet undertaking to describe any APIs
AFAICT.

> The above might be a bad idea, but the important point is that I have
> some hesitation about making this part of the charter, as opposed to
> opening an ISSUE and hacking at it with blunt objects.

How about if we soften it a bit:

  Applications that perform error recovery should provide a mechanism
  for identifying when recovery was performed on a document.

But leaving it out of the charter and making it issue 1 works for me too.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:57:48 GMT