W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Must vs. fatal error

From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:30:16 +0100 (BST)
To: public-xml-id@w3.org
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Message-Id: <20050511133016.D349B2A7E23@macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk>

> On the other hand, "Such errors are not fatal, but must be reported by 
> the xml:id processor to the application invoking it."

> XOM can check all the constraints. However, it has no concept of a 
> non-fatal error or a warning. For XOM, errors are either fatal or 
> nonexistent. XOM can either report a fatal error on spotting a violation 
> of am xml:id MUST or it can do nothing.

It does seem worth allowing for processors that can't return any
non-fatal errors when they are otherwise successful.  We are
considering removing the phrase "to the application invoking it" from
the quoted sentence, so that it would acceptable merely to print a
warning to the user.  We are not however happy with the idea of these
errors being silently ignored - that would not help interoperability.

Does that help you?

-- Richard
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 13:30:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:50 UTC