W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > November 2008

RE: Do we need err:XS0016?

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:51:13 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870D84C482@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>

> 
> I don't think err:XS0044 covers this case either, it's the element
> analog of err:XS0008, saying that unexpected elements aren't allowed.
> It doesn't say anything about required elements or attributes.
> 
> > So, what should we do with pipelines that do not validate 
> egainst the
> > XProc schema (which is the case here)? I thought that this 
> was covered
> > by err:XS0044.
> 
> I don't think we have a general "must conform to schema" error. We
> could add one, or we could cover the cases with specific errors, like
> err:XS0016. I think I'm marginally inclined to try to cover the cases
> with explicit errors since it will be more helpful to users, I think.
> But I don't feel strongly about it.
> 

Personally, I would prefer a single error code for "must conform to
schema", although I don't want to give the impression in the spec that a
conforming processor must always validate.
If we decide to use explicit error codes, we may need quite a lot of
them: "p:log must contain @port", p:document must contain @href",
"p:variable must contain @name and @select", etc... But perhaps the
errors could be generalized, so we would need only a few.

Vojtech
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 13:52:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:26 UTC